The complexity and heterogeneity of the nature of personal meanings, the duality of the sources of their generation, formation and development, the diversity of their functions suggests their functioning as a complex multi-level system. Most, both domestic and foreign, researchers of the problem of meaning note the fact that a person is inherent in the presence of not one, but a number of different meanings. In the psychological literature, attempts have repeatedly been made to classify meanings on various grounds. The theoretical analysis of the state of this problem in various philosophical concepts and psychological theories makes it possible to single out various criteria underlying various semantic classifications. In them, meanings are presented in their various qualities: conscious and unconscious, subjective and objective, internal and external, biological and personal, individual and social, etc.

In addition, meanings in various schools and directions cover a wide range of human functioning and are expressed in such concepts as the meaning of action, activity, behavior, life, existence. In this regard, it is necessary to single out concepts that are more generalizing on the one hand and clarifying on the other hand, reflecting different levels of human awareness of the surrounding reality: situational meaning, life meaning (vital necessity), meaning of life (development and aspiration), the meaning of being (super-sense or cosmic meaning). These concepts are generalizing categories that include more specific semantic formations and reflect the hierarchical relationships between the components of the motivational-required, value-semantic spheres of the personality and different-level structures of consciousness.

Based on the foregoing, we can say that personal meanings act as a link between various subsystems of the personality. Being components of a more complex system - personality, they themselves represent a system organized in a certain hierarchical sequence, reflecting the processes of development and functioning of the personality at various stages of human life.

The concept of a system as a psychological category was laid down by Vygotsky, who considered a dynamic semantic system as a unity of affective and intellectual processes of consciousness. Vygotsky L.S. Collected works: In 6 volumes - M .: Pedagogy, 1982. T5 .. In the future, A.G. Asmolov, developing the provisions of Vygotsky, used the concept of a dynamic semantic system to designate a multidimensional systemic organization of semantic formations. This system, according to Asmolov, is characterized by its own internal dynamics, determined by complex hierarchical relationships between its components. Being a derivative of human activity and his position, the dynamic semantic system expresses the meaningful characteristics of the personality as a whole and acts as a unit of its analysis Asmolov A.G. Personality as a subject of psychological research. - M.: Publishing House of Moscow State University, 1984 ..

Considering a person, his personality and being as complex systems, most researchers proceed from the general scientific definition of the concept of a system as a set of elements that are in relationships and connections with each other, which form a certain integrity, unity. Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary / Ed. L.F. Ilyicheva and others - M .: Sov. encyclopedia. - 1983. The following are distinguished as the main characteristics of the system: integrity, structure, hierarchy, interdependence of the system and environment, multiplicity of descriptions. At the same time, psychological systems are characterized by such specific features as dynamism, self-organization and purposefulness. These characteristics are reflected in such complexly organized systems as the "multidimensional world of man" by A.N. Leontiev, "life worlds" by F.E. Vasilyuk, "the semantic sphere of personality" B.S. Bratusya, “semantic reality” by D.A. Leontiev and others.

V.D. Shadrikov, characterizing the psychological system as specific, points to the temporal component that determines its functioning. This is a system "... developing in time, changing the composition of its components and the relationships between them while maintaining functions" Cited. Quoted from: Platonov K.K. Structure and development of personality. - M.: Nauka, 1999 ..

According to V.E. Klochko, in order for the psyche to be the object of psychological research, it is necessary that the subject of psychology be a psychological system. The psychological system, at the same time, has such features that other systems do not have: “First of all, the qualities produced by the system are not only formed in the system, but are also reflected by it indirectly and directly, as well as in the unity of these two forms, which ensures self-regulation in psychological systems (orientation, selectivity, procedural determination) and the further development of the entire system and its components (psyche, activity, personality) ”Cit. by: Dolzhenko V. Yu. Formation of the category "meaning" as a problem of historical and psychological research: Dis. ... Ph.D. in Psychology. - Barnaul, 2001. - S. 77 ..

The principle of systemic determination was put forward by V.E. Klochko as the basis of his theory of self-organizing psychological systems. In this theory, the person himself is understood as a psychological system. It combines the "image of the world" (as a subjective component), the "way of life" (as its activity component) and reality itself - the multidimensional world of a person "... as the ontological basis of his life, which determines the very way of life and is determined by it" Klochko V .E., Galazhinsky E.V. Personality self-organization: a systematic view. Tomsk: Publishing House of Tomsk University, 1999. - S. 79 .. Definition of a special psychological space, designated after A.N. Leontiev as "the multidimensional world of man", made it possible to overcome the opposition of internal and external. According to V.E. Klochko, a person, understood as an integral psychological system, “acts not in opposition to the objective world, but in unity with it, in his extension to that part of this world that he has “mastered”, i.e. has meaning, meaning, value for him. At the same time, the meanings are understood by V.E. Klochko as special systemic and supersensory qualities of objects, outlining the boundaries of the multidimensional system "man". It is they, being the sixth dimension of the human world, that determine the field of consciousness and make the world real.

Being a person, a person acts as an autonomous carrier and subject of socially developed forms of activity attitude to the world (for more details, see Leontiev D.A., 1989 a). From a psychological point of view, this quality acts as the ability to master one's own behavior, which, as L.S. Vygotsky convincingly showed in his theoretical and experimental studies, is a product of a person's lifestyle that is social in nature. “Personality ... is not innate, but arises as a result of cultural development, therefore “personality” is a historical concept. It embraces the unity of behavior, which is distinguished by the sign of mastery” (Vygotsky, 1983 a, p. 315).

Mastering one's behavior involves the formation of a specific system of behavior regulation. This position paradoxically echoes the thought expressed by D.B. Elkonin in a personal conversation (February 1984): “Personality is not regulation, but, on the contrary, overcoming all kinds of regulations.” In the scientific diaries published posthumously, this idea is expressed by him as follows: “Personality is the highest psychological authority for organizing and controlling one’s behavior, which consists in overcoming oneself” (Elkonin, 1989, p. 517). The fact is that the formation of personal mechanisms for mastering one's own behavior, as shown, in particular, by L.S. Vygotsky (1983a), overcomes the direct determination of behavior characteristic of animals by external stimuli and actual needs, introducing into it new, higher patterns that subordinate the action of the lower ones. The correlations of these higher laws of determination with the lower ones are brilliantly expressed by Hegel's formula: "Circumstances or motives dominate a person only to the extent that he himself allows them to" (1971, p. 26).

Consider the relationship between the psyche and personality in terms of their functions in the regulation of activity. The functional role of the psyche in the most general form can be described as the regulation of life on the basis of orientation in the objective world through the construction of subjective images of reality (see Leontiev A.N., 1972, 1983 b; Galperin, 1976). In other words, the psyche as a form of reflection correlates with the most objective reality given to the subject in the image. More specifically, the function of cognitive processes is defined as the recognition of invariants of the external environment (Royce, Powell, 1983, p. 11). Mental regulation of life activity has a completely adaptive orientation; completely reduced to adaptation to the surrounding world, it does not give rise to the need for the subject to separate himself from this world. Here we are dealing only with "self-organization" inherent in all living systems and not specific to humans.

A person’s mastery of his behavior is a turn in the process of human evolution, at which “... the property of self-organization of living systems gives way to a self-control mechanism, which means the emergence of a “relationship” to oneself, the formation of a “self”, subjectivity with its immanent ability to be “for oneself” » (Ivanov, 1977, pp. 83–84). The regulation of his life activity on the part of the objective relations that connect him with the world takes the form of self-regulation carried out by a person - a psychological structure in which these relations are presented and ordered in a specific form.

Personal regulation of life activity arises in the process of anthropogenesis, when life activity itself becomes the subject of attitude on the part of its bearers (Ivanov, 1977; Abishev, 1978). A new system of relations of the subject arises - relations to one's own direct relations with the world. Man's consciousness reflects not only objective reality, but also (in a specific form) the very relations that bind him to it. These relationships can be of varying degrees of awareness; their representation in consciousness forms a special plane of subjective reality inherent in the "internally complex life world" (Vasilyuk, 1984). If we have characterized the function of the psyche in general terms as an orientation in objective reality, in its invariant properties, then the function of personality can be characterized as an orientation in relations that connect the subject with objective reality, and the subordination of activity to the hierarchy of these relations. The integrity of the personality is thus determined by the degree of integration of its relations with the world, and not by structural ingredients (Ivanov, 1986).

Thus, a personality as a psychological formation, as a regulatory system is constituted by the functions of the subject separating himself from the surrounding world, isolating, presenting and structuring his relations with the world and subordinating his life activity to the stable structure of these relations, as opposed to momentary impulses and external stimuli.

This system of functions is carried out by the main, constitutive substructure of the personality - its semantic sphere. The semantic sphere of a personality is a specially organized set of semantic formations (structures) and connections between them, which ensures the semantic regulation of the subject's integral life activity in all its aspects. At its core, a personality is an integral system of semantic regulation of life activity, realizing through separate semantic structures and processes and their systems the logic of vital necessity in all manifestations of a person as a subject of life activity.

In order to better understand the correlation of semantic regulation with other systems of regulation of life, it is necessary to consider the question: why do people do what they do? This is a key issue of personality psychology, since a person absorbs and integrates various mechanisms for regulating activity and life in general. There are at least six possible answers to this question, which determine six different systems of human relations with the world and, accordingly, six different systems for regulating behavior, human life in the world. These systems are intertwined with each other, however, they can be quite clearly distinguished in a pure form.

The first answer to this question is: "Because I want to." This is the logic of satisfying needs. I have a desire, an attraction, it must be satisfied. The second answer, the second logic of behavior: "Because he started first." This is the logic of responding to a stimulus. Third answer: "Because I always do that." This is the logic of predisposition, stereotype, disposition, which covers, perhaps, most of the psychology of the individual. Such concepts as “character”, “style”, “attitude”, “learning” are associated with it. A very large part of our life proceeds according to this logic. The three named systems or mechanisms are common to man and animal. Any animal can behave in line with these three logics or their constellation.

The fourth answer is already specific to the person, but not specific to the person: "Because everyone does it." V.V. Stolin (1983a) introduced at one time a somewhat controversial concept of “social individual”, which describes exactly this logic - the logic of social normativity, social expectations, where the criterion of regulation is compliance with certain expectations of a socially significant group. The extreme expression of this logic is total conformism. But, of course, when building relations with the world, it is necessary to take into account, to one degree or another, social expectations, the interests of the social whole.

Fifth answer: "I did it because it's important to me." This logic is the above-described logic of meaning or the logic of vital necessity, specific to the personality and constituting the personality. It can be argued that a person is a person to the extent that his life is determined precisely by this logic. The first three systems of regulation of activity do not need a conception of the world as a whole. In order to respond to a stimulus, a stimulus is sufficient. In order to satisfy your needs, there are enough needs. To behave according to a stereotype, a stereotype is enough. The determinants of all these forms of behavior do not go beyond the specific situation. Acting within the framework of these three logics, the subject cannot do something that is not in the situation. The logic of social normativity expands the context of activity, taking into account what is not here-and-now in this situation, but it is still not connected with the world as a whole, it is connected with the expansion of the context of life, with the inclusion of significant social groups in the life structure of these relations. . An action that is oriented towards meaning is an action that is oriented towards the entire system of relations with the world as a whole. This is behavior in which the whole system of relations with the world and the whole long-term perspective are taken into account in a certain way. If I focus on the meaning of the action for me, I cannot do something that is destructive to my life in the long run. Just as one can restore the whole from any small piece of a hologram, the whole life world as a whole is reflected in the sense of any particular action. Focusing on meaning, a person rises above the situation.

Finally, the sixth answer: "Why not?". It reflects the logic of free choice. If the first five logics of behavior (in descriptive terms) or systems of regulation of activity (in explanatory constructs) are to some extent inherent in all mentally healthy and full-fledged people, then the sixth logic or system is not inherent in all people and reflects, in our opinion, the measure of personal maturity as its main differential psychological characteristic (for more details, see Leontiev D.A., 1993).

Do the six logics described exhaust all possible regulatory principles of human behavior? There are no theoretical grounds for insisting on this. Moreover, in one audience where the author presented this model, he was asked a question about Christ, whose behavior does not fit into the framework of this model. Perhaps, indeed, behavior controlled by a higher vocation, a mission, when a person feels higher freedom precisely because there is (subjectively) no choice for him, is another, higher type of regulation of activity. If so, then the bearers of this logic of behavior are extremely few in number. Because of this, the problem of the seventh level appears to be as fundamental in theoretical terms as it is of little relevance in practical terms. For now, we will refrain from trying to characterize it in any meaningful way and limit our further consideration to six logics that allow their detailed psychological analysis.

Let us now consider the relationship between various regulatory systems. Although, apparently, there are various psychological mechanisms behind them, in specific behavior, as already mentioned, they do not function separately, but are integrated into single multilevel functional systems of regulation of activity and its individual units. In principle, the six logics described can be considered as six dimensions of human action; accordingly, any action can be decomposed into six vectors corresponding to these six logics and acting as projections of the integral action onto each of the six dimensions. Looking at personality through the prism of these six dimensions forms the basis of what we feel justified in calling the multi-regulatory model of personality; In this case, we are given grounds to speak of a theoretical model by the fact that the adoption of this angle of view allows us to see the answers to a number of rather important and topical theoretical questions of personality psychology.

Indeed, if we look at personality through the prism of the proposed multi-regulatory model, we, firstly, can state noticeable individual differences in the severity of each of the six logics. There are people who are more or less driven by their actual needs; more or less easily responsive to external stimuli; more or less mechanically applying ready-made schemes and stereotypes; more or less sensitive to social expectations and pressures; more or less taking into account (consciously or intuitively) multiple contexts and remote consequences of their actions; more or less capable (or unable at all) to overcome the given determinants of their actions and to carry out a free act.

Secondly, it is quite clearly possible to trace the genetic sequence of the formation of various regulatory systems. The first three logics begin to develop in parallel from the moment of birth (if not earlier). The logics of social normativity and the vital necessity of an infant also begin to be taught in the first year of life, but they really manifest themselves in behavior not earlier than 1 year, and only after 3 years do they occupy a more or less prominent place in the spectrum of behavioral logics. The critical period of the formation of the logic of free choice is adolescence. The essence of the adolescent crisis lies precisely in the conflict between the desire for autonomy and the insufficient development of the psychological mechanisms of autonomous regulation of behavior. The resolution of this crisis is either the formation of these mechanisms, or the rejection of autonomy (Kaliteevskaya, 1997; see also Leontiev D.A., 1993). This model also makes it possible to give intelligible answers to questions about when a personality is born and whether it is possible to quantify it, that is, to say who has “more personality” and who has “less.” Indeed, if we accept that a person is constituted by one of the six logics of behavior, namely the logic of vital necessity or semantic logic, then the specific weight of this logic in the spectrum of behavior regulation mechanisms will serve as a “quantitative measure of personality”. Accordingly, it can be argued that individual manifestations of personality can be observed from about 1 year old, and its stable influence on behavior (albeit in competition with other regulatory mechanisms) - from 3 years old. In the crucible of adolescence crisis, a mature, autonomous, self-determined personality has a chance to be born, although this does not happen to everyone.

Finally, clinical psychology provides ample evidence for the existence of specific disorders of individual regulatory systems. Thus, anorexia nervosa is a clear example of a violation of the system of satisfaction of needs, autism is a system of responding to stimuli, etc. The task of psychotherapy in this regard can be considered as restoring the disturbed balance of regulatory systems. In general, the ability for self-control inherent in a healthy person is based, in our opinion, precisely on the balanced development of all six regulatory systems (or at least the first five) with the dominant role of higher, specifically human regulatory systems - the logic of meaning and the logic of free choice. . It is no coincidence that attempts to manipulate people's behavior can use one of the four “lower” logics (seduction, provocation, attitude formation, and imposition of obligations) and should block the two higher ones to the maximum extent.

Let us now consider the correlation of the semantic sphere of personality with other spheres, systems and components that form its structure.

The most theoretically and empirically substantiated model of personality structure seems to us today is the model of B.S. Bratus (1988). B.S. Bratus identifies the following levels of personality structure: 1) the personal or personal-semantic level, “responsible” for the production of semantic orientations, determining the general meaning and purpose of one’s life, relationships to other people and to oneself; 2) the individual performance level or the level of implementation, at which semantic orientations are realized in a particular activity - this level bears the imprint of characterological traits, features and properties, and 3) the psychophysiological level characterizing the features of the structure and dynamics, modes of functioning of mental processes.

The levels of personality structure identified by B.S. Bratus are in good agreement with the distinction introduced by A.G. Asmolov (1984) in the personality of the content plan - the plan of semantic formations that characterize the personality from the content side, from the side of its motives, life goals, general orientation and etc. - and the plan of expression, which includes such structures as abilities and character traits that are responsible for the characteristics of personality manifestations in activity. In terms of expression, A.G. Asmolov subdivides these manifestations into expressive and instrumental. The psychophysiological level, which ensures the functioning of personality structures, A.G. Asmolov refers not to the personality itself, but to its prerequisites.

Taking as a basis the basic general logic of the approaches of A.G. Asmolov and B.S. Bratus to understanding the structure of personality, we see in their theoretical models one fundamental common drawback, which, however, is associated with the general state of personality psychology today. This shortcoming lies in the undifferentiated idea of ​​the highest, specifically human level of the structural organization of the personality. It seems to us that here it is necessary to single out not one, but at least two different levels, the content of which will be structures and mechanisms that are fundamentally different in nature. Therefore, we consider it necessary to single out three levels of the structural organization of the personality (see Leontiev D.A., 1993): 1) the level of the nuclear mechanisms of the personality, which form a supporting psychological skeleton or frame, on which everything else is subsequently strung; 2) semantic level - the relationship of the individual with the world, taken from their content side, that is, in fact, what is denoted by the concept of "human inner world"; 3) expressive-instrumental level - structures that characterize the forms or methods of external manifestation, typical for the personality, interaction with the world, its outer shell. (The psychophysiological level - the level of bodily and brain mechanisms - we, following A.G. Asmolov, tend to attribute to the prerequisites of the personality, and not to the constituent parts of its structure).

Our understanding of the expressive-instrumental level does not fundamentally differ from the understanding that A.G. Asmolov put into the concept of “expression plan”, and B.S. Bratus into the concept of “realization level”, with the only difference that level, we consider, along with character traits and abilities, also the roles included by a person in his repertoire. We also understand the semantic level in a similar way - as a layer of semantic structures in which specific meaningful relationships of a person with the world are crystallized, and which regulate his life activity. This level will be discussed in detail in later chapters. At this level, the “production of semantic orientations” is indeed carried out, but only one of its types is the production of semantic orientations in the process of a person’s real life activity, the realization of his relations with the world.

For the critical processes of changing semantic orientations through free choice or a self-directed reflexive semantic technique, the nuclear mechanisms of the personality are responsible - the mechanisms of the highest level. These nuclear mechanisms are freedom and responsibility. The difficulty of their comprehension stems from the fact that in the personality we will not find a certain structure that can be called "freedom", or "responsibility", or "choice". They are not elements or substructures of personality like, say, abilities, needs, roles, or relationships. These are precisely the ways, forms of its existence and self-realization, which do not have their own content. In the process of becoming and shaping the personality, they occupy (or do not occupy) a central place in the relationship of a person with the world, become (or do not become) the core of his life activity and are filled (or not filled) with value content that gives meaning to them. Being filled with the content of the semantic level, they, in turn, determine the lines of development of the semantic sphere, create the force field in which it is formed (for more details, see Leontiev D.A., 1993; Kaliteevskaya, 1997).

Each person endows certain phenomena and objects of the world with their own meaning. Often the absence of these meanings is expressed in quite dramatic manifestations - neurosis, depression, loss of oneself. The meanings that a person attaches to certain phenomena are called personal, or individual, meaning.

Basic definition

Personal meaning is a term that has become one of the key terms for modern Western society. In the concepts of Western psychologists, this term has been developed. First of all, this concept was widely reviewed in the works of R. May and V. Frankl. The dictionary gives the following definition of personal meaning. This is a special individually-specific, as well as personal-biased characteristic of certain phenomena.

Individual Meaning in Frankl's Works

Frankl's individual meaning comes down to what a person "gives life" and what he "takes from the world". According to Frankl, this concept is directly related to the position that a person takes in relation to his destiny. Since everyone inevitably has to deal with such experiences as pain, guilt and death, the meaning of life can be found not only through the perception of benefits, but also through suffering.

In the research of this eminent psychologist, several points are usually made about the idea of ​​personal meaning. First, the individual meaning of an event is directly related to many things and phenomena. In any of life situations there are opportunities to realize one or another individual meaning. Meaning is a phenomenon inseparable from the values ​​that a person discovers for himself in the outside world on his life path. Frankl, challenging A. Maslow's well-known concept of self-realization, puts forward his own position. He believes that a person should not devote his life to the realization of the talents inherent in him, but to direct his attention to the realization of certain values ​​and opportunities. In this idea, one can single out something related to the spiritual side of life, for example, the idea of ​​a holistic approach to a person.

Where to look for meaning?

But if modern psychological knowledge relates value to one of the constituent parts of the personality, then Frankl believes that value must be sought in the outside world, and not inside. And also, taking the concept of meaning beyond the limits of personal existence, the scientist comes to an interesting conclusion: a person needs “stressed states”. Its formula is in many ways similar to the concept of another scientist - K. Levin, who created a model of the so-called stressed systems. The personal meaning of both one and the second researcher is realized in the conditions of a discrepancy between the aspirations of the individual and the conditions of external circumstances. In the event that a person fails to find an individual meaning in difficult life circumstances, personal degradation occurs. This process can be stopped only by finding new meanings.

The concept of A. N. Leontiev

According to the research of A. N. Leontiev, personal meaning is one of the fundamental components of consciousness. His sensory fabric, according to the scientist, forms the composition of specific images of objective reality, which can either be actually perceived or emerge in the form of images in memory. In addition to meaning, the structure of consciousness contains two more components - meaning and sensory fabric of perception. Sensual fabric allows you to perceive the outside world as a kind of field and object of activity. As for the meaning, it represents this or that content that fills the word, sentence or sign of the language. The universal systems of meanings are music, dance, fine arts.

Personal meaning is a component of consciousness that reflects the significance of certain events for a person. It allows you to determine the ratio of the phenomena of objective reality to the interests of man. If interests and events or objects of the external world coincide, then they are simultaneously endowed with individual value. Personal meaning and meanings are parts of consciousness that are closely related to each other. The value that is perceived acquires a very special individual meaning.

For example, many students would like to get good grades. This desire has a common meaning for all, which is also the norm in society. But for one student, a good grade will speak about the level of his knowledge and talents. For another, it will mean that he is better than his peers in some respects. For the third, a good mark means receiving a long-awaited gift from their parents.

The individual content of the meaning that a certain event acquires for each person is called personal meaning. This phenomenon shows that the social and personal meaning of education is often different. What is important for society may be insignificant for the individual and vice versa. If it is important for society that a citizen fulfill his social duties, be a worthy and educated member of it, benefiting society, then an individual can put a completely different meaning into getting an education.

The concept of a semantic barrier

People put different individual meanings into words, and this causes a lot of difficulties in mutual understanding. Such cases have received in psychology the name of the semantic barrier. This term was introduced by the domestic psychologist L. S. Slavina. In the process of researching groups of younger students, she looked for the reasons for the disobedience of some children. It turned out that this phenomenon was largely associated with the difference in the meanings of the teacher and the child.

For example, a teacher asks a student a question, trying to "pull out" it and put the best mark. The student believes that the teacher finds fault with him. The teacher can give the mark that seems fair, and the student is sure that the mark is underestimated.

The semantic barrier can arise in any sphere. For example, between a child and parents or between two adults. It is worth noting that with frequent repetition of mutual misunderstanding, the semantic barrier will become larger and capture new areas of relationships between people. Then the actions emanating, for example, from a picky teacher, will no longer be perceived by the student at all. In the people, this is clearly described by the phrase "like peas from the wall."

Significance is the main component of meaning

In the process of revealing the concept of “sense”, it is useful to refer to the history of the language: the Old Slavonic word “sense” meant “mind, way of thinking, wisdom”. In Ozhegov's dictionary there is another interpretation of this word: it is "content, essence, purpose." In each of the definitions of the concept of "meaning" it can be traced that it belongs precisely to the mental component of human life.

Psychologists J. Royce and S. A. Powell also noted that personal meaning is a concept associated with the term "significance". Its people attach to each critical event or aspect of being. When a person loses ideals, a state occurs, called V. Frankl calls it. It is here that lies the cause that causes most modern neuroses. One of the critical qualities for maintaining mental health is a certain amount of tension, such as that which can come from the presence of meaning.

Meanings in professional activity

Of particular importance in the light of this concept is the personal meaning of professional activity. In many cases today a person is alienated from the object of his labor. The meaning of the work is reduced for him to "serve" the working day as soon as possible and receive payment for this, covering basic expenses. But in some cases it also turns out that professional activity carries other meanings for a person - it makes it possible to realize one's talents, to gain authority. In this case, on the contrary, work can have a therapeutic effect, helping to maintain mental balance when other areas of life are temporarily deprived of individual meanings.

Functions of individual meaning

Researchers Zeigarnik and Bratus wrote that the level of personality development is the level of value determination, the existence of certain meanings in the world. The main plane of personal development is moral and value. According to these authors, meaning has the following functions:

• By giving meaning to certain meanings, the interaction of man and society is carried out. Values ​​are the language of this interaction.
• Adherence to certain values ​​allows the individual to be identical to himself and complete. It determines the main characteristics of the individual, the level of her morality. The acquisition of value is the key to the subsequent acquisition of oneself.
• Through meanings and values, the ideal future is mentally constructed, including from the moral side.

Concepts of Heckhausen and Yalom

The works of Heckhausen describe the main components of semantic systems. First, these are semantic motives. They encourage people to be active. Secondly, semantic attitudes through which individual meaning is reflected. Thirdly, these are actions controlled by certain moral and semantic attitudes.

The opposition of the external and internal in relation to personal and value meanings was also reflected in the studies of I. Yalom. This is a psychotherapist from the USA. The existence of a person, especially in difficult life circumstances, comes down to survival and attempts to find meaning in one's own inner world. allows you to find it outside the personality. This idea coincides with Frankl's concept.

D. Kelly's view

The American psychologist D. Kelly, who also explored the concept of personal meaning, focuses on the inner world of the individual. He believes that internal processes are "channels laid in the psyche." It is in their mainstream that the individual predicts the development of events. Individuality, which always perceives reality subjectively, stands in the foreground. As a result, completely different people can be similar, since the same important events in their lives can be assigned approximately the same meanings. The personal meaning of such people coincides. It often happens the other way around - close people have completely different views on events.

Meaning

The objective credibility of the conscious image in the event of a conflict between the conditions of perception and the principles of building the world is provided by the second component of the conscious image and consciousness in general - value, and, ultimately, the action with the object. In its most general form, meaning is knowledge about the world fixed in language. Unlike knowledge of a situation presented to a living being in sensual sensory-perceptual images, knowledge presented in meanings is conceptual knowledge about the world (including the knowledge of the subject about himself and about society), created by the cumulative activity of all mankind. The limiting case of meanings are scientific concepts obtained in the intentional cognitive activity of people (science). As mentioned earlier, the need for conceptual knowledge appears in connection with the creative constructive activity of man. If for the success of the adaptive activity of an individual it is enough to highlight stimuli and guidelines in the field of action of the subject, then the success of the creative activity of mankind is impossible without knowledge about the structure of the world.

Meaning as knowledge cannot exist except as the knowledge of individuals. Outside of man there is no knowledge and no meaning. If there are only signs with fixed meanings in them, then without deciphering the signs and understanding the meanings, knowledge does not arise (dead languages, the inscriptions on which cannot be read). At the same time, it should be noted that meaning as a universal knowledge that belongs to all mankind and includes the experience of all mankind (its practices) exists independently of each individual, living in the language of people and developing according to its own laws, i.e. exists supra-individually. But through fixation in the language, knowledge becomes available to any person who has mastered the language, entering the consciousness of this individual.

The emergence of consciousness and conceptual knowledge about the world also changes the sensory perception of a person. Instead of images of the objects of the situation, which stand out in the field of action as objects-stimuli or guidelines, a person begins to perceive the objects of human culture that are part of the image of the world.

Unlike the images of objects of the spatial field of action, described in the sensory language of a certain modality according to the rules for constructing objects of needs and according to the requirements of utility for adaptive activity, the object of culture must also obey the knowledge of the principles of the structure of the whole world. Meaning, as a carrier of knowledge about the world, transforms the image of an object from the field of action into an image of an object from the human world, meaning it and now allowing it to be perceived not just as, for example, a white object of a certain shape and size, but as a sheet of paper. Meaning thus becomes a means of "meaning" the perceived conditions of the external environment and thus enters into the structure of the conscious image.

It is clear that the requirements for the images of an object as an object of need and as an object of human culture are different. The image of an object as an object of need may be incomplete (due to sensory language) and differ in different sensory languages ​​(the images of a flower in the visible color spectrum and in the ultraviolet spectrum are not the same). But these images should provide an effective orientation of the adaptive behavior of a living being. The image of a cultural object must correspond to the general picture of the world, meet the requirements of the reliability of knowledge about the subject, fit into the categorical grid of the conscious image of the world of mankind and each person. It is the basis of the activity of a person who produces the conditions of his life and lives in the space of social relations.

Differences between the images of an object as an object of need and an object of culture are clearly visible in studies of altered consciousness.

If a subject in a hypnotic state is told that when he comes out of hypnosis he will not see cigarettes, then the subject does not really mention cigarettes when listing items lying on the table. At the same time, some subjects do not recognize the pack of cigarettes, the lighter, and the ashtray on the table, although they see them and pick them up. Sometimes these subjects are unable to describe the tobacco shop and explain what it means to smoke. But at the same time, the subjects, sitting at the table, do not put a cup of tea on "invisible" cigarettes, bypass "invisible" objects (table or chair). It turns out that in consciousness at the moment there is no image of objects of culture, but as objects of the field of action, which are not objects of human culture, they are perceived and regulate behavior in the spatial field of activity.

Also interesting, although not entirely clear, is the established fact of the perception of objects or their images by different hemispheres of the brain when it is split (if the nerve connections connecting the two hemispheres are cut).

If an image or object is briefly presented only to the left linguistic hemisphere, then the person sees this object and can describe it. If the same stimulation is presented to the right hemisphere, then the person reacts to it biologically "correctly", but cannot describe the object or image. That is, the connection of the perceptual process with linguistic meanings makes it possible to see a socially adequate habitual object. The absence of meanings in the process of perception will give a correct identification of the object and an adequate biological reaction to it (vegetative reactions in men to the image of a naked woman), but is not accompanied by the formation of an image of a cultural object.

This gives grounds to assert that meaning introduces new properties into the image of an object with its physical qualities, obtained by mankind in cognitive activity. Meaning captures and, as it were, transfers the "invisible" properties of objects, including those intentionally created by man, into the consciousness of the individual (into conscious images) and includes them in the system of the categorical picture of the world built by mankind. This is the main function of meaning in the construction of conscious images.

personal meaning

Conscious images, as well as images of objects of the objective field of action, are intended to control and regulate the activity of the subject, but now already creative activity. It follows from this that the needs of the subject must be represented in them in some form. Such representation is provided by the third component of the conscious image - personal meaning. If a biological meaning is fixed in the image of objects, representing the needs of a natural subject, then the subject of the human world must "contain" the needs of a person as a social being (including as a person), i.e. subject of social normative and moral relations. Personal meaning just represents the need "coloring" of all objects, one's own actions and events taking place in the world.

Meaning is understood as the meaning of objects, events, actions for the subject, i.e. as the relation of the external world to the needs of man as a social being and personality. A. N. Leontiev pointed out that the meaning of actions is given by the ratio of goals to a motive, behind which there is a need.

Voting in elections has the same meaning for everyone, but the meaning of voting can be different. If a person has a desire to get into the government and one of the candidates promised him this, then voting makes sense for him to be a member of the government, and the candidate's victory is only a condition for this. Raising your hand in such a vote makes sense for your own career.

If the medal "For the Capture of Berlin" saved the life of a soldier (the bullet ricocheted off the medal), then the meaning of the medal has not changed, and its meaning has become special - it saved a life. The meaning of war is clear to all adults, but the meaning of war is different for a mother whose son takes part in hostilities and a mother whose son does not serve in the army, and hence the different attitudes and different reactions of these mothers to military events.

The function of personal meaning is to provide partiality of consciousness, helping to choose behavior that is adequate to the situation. Later we will see that a person's emotions are determined not by the events themselves, but by the meanings that these events acquire for the person.

Differences between sensual unconscious and consciously constructed images of a person

Now we can highlight the differences between conscious and sensory unconscious images. A sensory image is an image of an object as an object of biological behavioral space. The conscious image as an object of human culture claims to be the reliability of knowledge and penetration into the nature of the object. It is part of the image of the human world.

The sensory image of an object has a biological meaning and a functional meaning of a landmark. A conscious image has a meaning that represents an object in the system of other objects (in the categorical grid of human knowledge), and a personal meaning, presented in the form of a need-based "coloring" of objects, actions, events.

From this comparison, it can be seen that consciousness really provides a new level of reflection of the world, opening for a person not the field of his actions (situation), but the world of his life (being), revealing the laws of the functioning of the world and creating conditions for a person to build his life based on the knowledge gained. And although this analysis did not allow us to single out consciousness as a special phenomenon, as a special reality, we received confirmation of the presence of some process that provides a new level of reflection and regulation of activity.

Today in psychology there are two non-competing understandings of consciousness:

• a) a new higher stage in the development of the psyche, at which a person is able to receive such knowledge about the world that cannot be obtained by the senses;
• b) the ability of a person to be aware of the presence of sensory images, desires, emotions, states, actions, thoughts, etc.

Understanding consciousness as the ability to self-report allows us to identify a number of its characteristics.

Empirical Characteristics of Consciousness

Firstly, we can isolate the content of our consciousness, i.e. what is present now and can be present at all in our consciousness.

Secondly, we see that at this particular moment, not all the richness of our psyche is realized, not everything that we do, but only a small part of our activity. That is, we state the limitation of the volume of consciousness and thereby confirm the discrepancy between the concepts of "consciousness" and "psyche": the first is "already" (less in volume) of the second, is part of it. It also follows from the fact that the volume of consciousness is limited, that awareness is an independent task and an independent process of the movement of consciousness along the mental and motor activity of a person, which allowed C. G. Jung to compare consciousness with a ray of light.

Cases of pathology confirm the discrepancy between mental and conscious regulation of behavior. In some diseases, a person makes movement in a complex objective situation and does not stumble upon objects, but at the same time he is not aware of the speech addressed to him and then does not remember anything about what happened. We observe similar behavior in the post-hypnotic suggestion "not to see this object" or "to be in such and such a place." If a person is instilled that he is in a forest clearing and needs to pick flowers, then he picks imaginary flowers, but he never does it under the table that is in the room, and does not try to pass through the table.

Third the characteristic of consciousness is the allocation in the volume of consciousness of the focus (zone, field of clear awareness) and the periphery. The concepts of "volume", "focus" and "periphery" consciousness resonate with the concepts of "volume", "focus" and "periphery" perception and attention and we will discuss this further.

Since the mid-1960s, attempts have been made in Russian psychology to elucidate the general structure of personality. Very characteristic in this direction is the approach of K.K. Platonov, who created the psychological concept of the dynamic functional structure of the personality. K.K. Platonov distinguishes four substructures in the personality structure. In his opinion, this number of substructures is necessary and sufficient, since all known personality traits can be included in them. The singling out of these main substructures of personality is determined by Platonov by a number of the following criteria.

The first such criterion is the relationship between biological and social, innate (but not necessarily hereditary) and acquired, procedural and content. The difference between these three concepts manifests itself differently in different substructures. At the same time, the 1st substructure, the most significant for the personality as a whole, includes almost exclusively socially conditioned content traits of the personality (orientation in its various forms, attitudes, moral qualities of the personality). In the 2nd substructure - experience, which includes knowledge, skills, abilities and habits, along with personal wholesale, which includes social, there is already a noticeable influence of innate, biological procedural properties. This influence is further enhanced in the 3rd substructure, which includes personality traits that depend on the individual characteristics of mental processes. And finally, in the 4th biopsychic substructure of the personality, the innateness of the procedural sharply prevails over the acquisition. This sequence, Platonov notes, helps to better understand the relationship between the social and the biological, not only in the personality as a whole, but also in the substructures of various levels, down to individual personality traits.

The second criterion for the selection of these four personality substructures is the internal closeness of the personality traits included in each of them, and the already quite generally accepted and scientifically proven allocation in each of these substructures, taken as a whole, of its substructures of a lower level.

The third criterion for the identified four main substructures is that each of them has its own, special, basic type of formation for it. In the allocated substructures, the 1st is formed by education, the 2nd - by training, the 3rd - by exercises, the 4th - by training. The interaction of these types of formation, specific for each substructure, determines the individual feature of the development of each personality.

The fourth in the considered order, and in fact the most significant criterion for the selection of these substructures is the objectively existing hierarchical dependence of these substructures. Various structural links of coordination exist both between substructures and within each of them. But the causal connections of subordination are more clearly expressed in the interaction of various substructures than within any single substructure. At the same time, K.K. Platonov notes, the causal dependence of the personality traits of the 1st substructure on the traits of the 2nd, and together - on the traits of the 3rd, and all of them together - on the traits of the 4th, is clearly expressed objectively.

The fifth criterion that determines the selection of these four personality substructures is no longer logical, but historical. This fifth criterion says that the described four substructures of personality, in essence, only generalize the four stages in the development of the doctrine of personality in Soviet psychology.

These five criteria, according to Platonov, allow us to consider that the four identified substructures reflect objective reality and therefore are the main substructures of the personality; their number also reflects the objectively existing hierarchical and dynamic subordination.

Let's analyze the four substructures of personality identified by K.K. Platonov.

The 1st substructure of the personality combines the orientation and attitudes of the personality, manifested as its moral traits. The elements (features) of the personality included in this substructure do not have direct innate inclinations, but reflect the individually refracted group social consciousness. This substructure is formed through education. It, according to Platonov, can be called a socially conditioned substructure or, more briefly, the orientation of the personality. Orientation includes such forms as substructures: inclinations, desires, interests, inclinations, ideals, worldview, beliefs. In these forms of personality orientation, Platonov notes, both relationships and moral qualities of the personality, and various forms of needs are manifested. Most of all, according to Platonov, the activity of orientation is manifested through beliefs. Persuasion is the highest level of orientation, the structure of which includes not only a worldview that can be passive, but also an activating will to fight for it. Conviction is the highest result of the ideological education of the individual.

The 2nd substructure of personality combines knowledge, skills, abilities and habits acquired in personal experience through training, but already with a noticeable influence of both biologically and even genetically determined personality traits. This substructure, explains Platonov, is sometimes called individual culture or preparedness, but it is better to call it briefly experience.

The 3rd personality substructure combines the individual characteristics of individual mental processes, or mental functions, understood as forms of mental reflection: memory, emotions, sensations, thinking, perception, feelings, will. The influence of biologically determined features in this substructure can be seen even more clearly, since the forms of reflection are functions of the brain and depend on its state. It, interacting with the other three substructures, is formed mainly through exercise.

The 4th substructure of personality combines the properties of temperament (typological properties of personality). This also, according to K.K. Platonov, includes the sex and age characteristics of the personality and its pathological, so-called “organic” changes. The necessary traits included in this substructure are formed (or rather, they are altered) by training, if this alteration is possible at all. More than in the previous substructures, compensation plays a role here. Personality properties included in this substructure are incomparably more dependent on the physiological characteristics of the brain, and social influences only subordinate and compensate for them. Therefore, this substructure, according to Platonov, can be briefly called biopsychic. The activity of this substructure is determined by the strength of nervous processes, and it is studied at the psychophysiological, and sometimes at the neuropsychological, down to the molecular level.

A special place in the structure of Platonov's personality is occupied by character and abilities.

Interest in the semantic sphere of personality is steadily growing in psychology. In the understanding of D.A. Leontiev, the semantic sphere of personality is its main constituent substructure. The semantic sphere of personality, according to the definition of D.A. Leontiev, “... is a specially organized set of semantic formations (structures) and connections between them, providing semantic regulation of the integral life of the subject in all its aspects.”

In the structural organization of the personality, D.A. Leontiev identified three levels:

1) the level of the nuclear mechanisms of the personality, which form the supporting psychological skeleton or frame, on which everything else is subsequently strung;

2) semantic level - a layer of semantic structures in which specific meaningful relations of a person with the world are crystallized, which regulate his life activity;

3) expressive-instrumental level - structures that characterize forms or methods of external manifestation, typical for a person, interaction with the world, its outer shell. As structures of this level, D.A. Leontiev considered, along with character traits and abilities, also the roles included by a person in his repertoire.

D.A.Leontiev singled out six varieties of semantic formations (structures) that act as functionally different elements of the semantic sphere of a person: personal meaning, semantic attitude, motive, semantic disposition, semantic construct, personal values. These six semantic structures were attributed by D.A. Leontiev to three levels of organization: the level of structures directly involved in the regulation of the processes of activity and mental reflection (personal meaning and semantic attitude); the level of meaning-forming structures, whose participation in regulatory processes is mediated by the structures of the first level generated by them (motive, semantic disposition and semantic construct); and, finally, the highest level, which includes one of the varieties of semantic structures - personal values, which are an invariable and stable source of meaning formation on the scale of the subject's life. The motivating effect of personal values ​​is not limited to a specific activity, a specific situation, they correlate with the life of a person as a whole and have a high degree of stability. A change in the system of values ​​is an extraordinary, crisis event in the life of an individual. Considering the form of experiencing and subjective representation of personal values, D.A. Leontiev noted that values ​​are experienced as ideals - the final guidelines for the desired state of affairs.

The six varieties of semantic formations considered by D.A. Leontiev are not presented separately in the personality structure, they are connected with each other and form a dynamic semantic system. The dynamic semantic system, according to the definition of D.A. Leontiev, “... is a relatively stable and autonomous, hierarchically organized system that includes a number of semantic structures of different levels and functions as a whole.” D.A.Leontiev considers the dynamic semantic system (DSS) as a principle of organization and as a unit of analysis of the semantic sphere of the personality. Personality is made up of several dynamic semantic systems. Dynamic semantic systems intersect with each other and have common areas that can be considered related to both dynamic semantic systems.

D.A.Leontiev singles out such a psychological category as the meaning of life. By his definition, the meaning of life is an integral semantic orientation.

Another domestic psychologist B.S. Bratus defines semantic formations as units of analysis of the moral sphere of a person. He considers not so much the structural and organizational as the content side of semantic formations: “The need to take into account this content side becomes, perhaps, especially obvious when meeting with difficult, abnormal, deviant development both in adolescence and in more mature age, which, as shown many studies usually proceed in conjunction with the egocentric orientation of a person, and often is a direct consequence of it.

B.S. Bratus identifies four levels of the semantic sphere of personality:

1) zero level - these are actually pragmatic, situational meanings, determined by the very objective logic of achieving the goal in these specific conditions. So, going to the cinema and seeing a large queue and an announcement that there are few tickets left at the box office just before the start of the session, we can say: “There is no point in standing in this queue - we won’t get tickets.” It is clear that such a meaning can hardly be called personal, let alone moral.

2) the first level of the personal-semantic sphere - the egocentric level, in which the starting point is personal gain, ambition, convenience, prestige and other directly personal relationships. At the same time, all other people are made dependent on these relationships, are considered as helping (convenient, "good"), or as preventing ("bad") their implementation. It should be noted that this level can sometimes be presented as very attractive and even have lofty intentions, such as self-improvement. However, it can turn out to be no more than self-centeredness, if it is directed only for the benefit of oneself.

3) the second level - group-centric, the defining semantic moment of attitude to reality at this level is the person's close environment, the group. At the same time, the attitude towards another person essentially depends on whether he is a member of “his own” or “foreign”, “distant” group.

4) the third level is pro-social, characterized by the internal semantic aspiration of a person to create such products of his labor, activity, communication, knowledge that will bring equal benefit to others, even personally unfamiliar to him, "foreign", "distant" people, society as a whole.

If at the first level another person acts as a thing, as the foot of egocentric desires, and at the second level others are divided into a circle of “us”, having intrinsic value, and “strangers”, devoid of it, then at the third level the principle of intrinsic value becomes universal, defining the main thing. and, according to A.V. Sery and M.S. Yanitsky, the only true direction of familiarization with the generic human essence, without which the normal development of the personality is impossible.

So, meanings are not homogeneous formations, but from a psychological and moral and ethical point of view, they differ significantly depending on their relation to one or another level of the semantic sphere of the individual.

Conclusion

Only by characterizing the main forces influencing the formation of personality, including the social direction of education and public upbringing, that is, by defining a person as an object of social development, can we understand the internal conditions for his formation as a subject of social development. In this sense, a person is always concrete-historical, she is a product of her era and the life of the country, a contemporary and a participant in events that make up milestones in the history of society and her own life path.

So, the formation of personality is a very complex process that lasts our whole life. Some personality traits are already laid in us at birth, others we develop in the course of our life. And the environment helps us in this. After all, the environment plays a very important role in the formation of personality.

To become a person means, firstly, to take a certain life, moral position; secondly, to be sufficiently aware of it and to bear responsibility for it; thirdly, to affirm it with your actions, deeds, with your whole life. After all, the origins of the personality, its value, and finally, good or bad fame about it, are ultimately determined by the social, moral significance that it really shows through its life.