Development of problems of personality psychology in the 80-90s

Published in: Psychological science in Russia of the XX century: problems of theory and history. Edited by A.V. Brushlinsky, Moscow: Institute of psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1997, Pp. 331-367.

​

The 80-90s can be distinguished in a separate period of development of personality psychology not by the actual affiliation (year of publication) of certain works, but by new trends in the development of the personal research direction and the section of General psychology. The first and main feature of this period is the appeal to the study of the real person and the creation of such models that would embody the personality characteristics of a given society in a given period of time. This trend, as noted above, is not new for Russian psychology, since it was most pronounced in the psychology of the twenties. It is because of this that research is becoming more and more specific, concepts cover not only global, but also detailed problems of personality psychology. If in the sixties and seventies, during the beginning of the "thaw" in psychology, a humanistic approach to personality was outlined, which was an alternative to the socialist ideology, then in the eighties and subsequent years it became stronger, more concrete, spread and manifested itself in a number of new areas for Russian science. For Soviet ideology was characteristic not only of the creation of the standard model of personality "the Soviet man", not only the proclamation of the utopian thesis of the harmonious, comprehensively developed personality (which, admittedly, in their own way sounded value aspect), but theoretical and practical-life statement is the most severe of the principle of "Soviet man can do anything": the plan at any cost, the construction of socialism at any cost, etc. (this is repeatedly noted in his writings on philosophical anthropology, L. P., buoys). The humanistic approach to man in Russian psychology was expressed not so much in familiarity with the ideas of Rogers, but first of all in the growing attention (even in such applied areas of psychology as engineering) to the price of human activity, i.e. to the real personal and psychological costs that achieve a particular result.

The transition from abstract humanism, expressed in the formula about man as the goal of communism, to real humanism required, first, the identification of those contradictions that prevent the realization of his human essence, which Rubinstein expressed with his tragic question: "How can a person become (or remain) human in an inhumane world?" Secondly, the transition to real humanism was expressed in the convergence of personality psychology and ethics, in the appeal of researchers to the moral and value aspects of behavior, thinking, and motivation. He said, thirdly, increasing attention to problems of health and illness, the mental health problems of the individual: in the last period begins a rapid development of psychotherapy as applied psychology of personality, counseling, and attempts a theoretical understanding of applied problems of personality. The humanistic approach to personality is manifested in the eighties and nineties in the partial renewal of the national tradition, the partial application of foreign strategies and tactics of psychodiagnostics [195, etc.]. The latter can indeed be considered as a direct alternative to the thesis "the Soviet man can do anything", since psychodiagnostics is aimed at identifying the real, rather than socially required, capabilities of a person to establish his compliance-non-compliance with work, profession [76, 140, 154].

The development of a systematic approach by Lomov at the turn of this last period and its consistent implementation by the staff of the academic Institute of psychology contributed to the transfer of the philosophical and methodological problems listed above to the rank of specific scientific research strategies. Methodological analysis is integrated with theoretical analysis and becomes not only a professional occupation of leading methodologists, but also a problematic scientific consciousness of all psychologists. As V. K. Kalin rightly notes, there is a transition from a descriptive approach to an explanatory one [103, p. 14]. At first glance, methodological principles that had long existed in Russian psychology played the role of explanatory ones, but in reality they turned out to be a priori explanations. The peculiarity of the changes that took place in the eighties was that, on the one hand, the share of methodology in science as a whole significantly decreased (the methodology was partially identified with ideology and discredited on this incorrect basis). On the other hand, as B. A. subtly notes. Sosnovsky: "but methodologically, the main thing is the commonality and clear continuity of many of the main postulates of Russian psychology" [199, p. 14], i.e. methodological principles have turned from declared categorical postulates into methodological guidelines, which still constitute an enduring value for many modern studies. As methodological guidelines, they increase the level of problem psychology, which Sosnovsky also writes about, noting for each specific issue what remains unexplored, and what is a problem that requires empirical verification and proof. Thus, problematization of psychology does not reduce its explanatory capabilities, but rather increases it.

If at the early stages of the development of personality psychology, the personal principle played a decisive role as an approach to the study of all mental processes, then the last period of Russian psychology allows us to characterize it entirely as a person-oriented knowledge, in the terminology of polani [186], Feyerabend, etc. The personal basis is also present in studies of speech [123], thinking [50, etc.], memory (N. N. Korzh, etc.), etc. And if you work 60-70's, for example, even so deep as V. K. Viliunas about emotions, still focused on the detail themselves functions of emotions, studies of the eighties-nineties, enter the specific definition of personality "functions" (emotions, will, etc.) in the context of the internal functioning of the individual. For example, referring to the study of the will as a traditional personal education, V. K. Kalin writes: "one of the most important methodological issues of the problem of will is the question of what whole the function of the will can be revealed, and through this its essence is understood" [103, p. 7]. However, it is not just a question of "fitting" the will into a personal "frame" or a particular structure, which ultimately, by focusing researchers ' attention on the subordination of substructures, does not lead to an understanding of their functions in the very relationship of the individual with the world, but rather to understand the functional capabilities of the individual itself, related to the mechanisms of will, emotions, etc. And this approach is, in particular, the implementation of the system approach in its explanatory, rather than declarative version. This change appears very clearly in the scientific presentation of the problems of personality psychology, and not only in the characterization of it as a research area [163].

A concrete expression of the growing role of the explanatory approach and the type of research is theoretical modeling, which replaces the simple description of the subject of research, through an equally simple reference to the field of problems of personality psychology. Several decades earlier, Chkhartishvili tried to define a similar modeling principle in his doctoral dissertation "The problem of the motive of volitional behavior" (1955). "The meaning of motivation," he wrote, "consists precisely in this: activity is sought and found that corresponds to the basic attitude of the individual, fixed in the process of life" [227, p. 104].

The same principle is contained in the approach to the will proposed by Kalin: "the function of volitional regulation is to optimize the processes of formation and retention of the necessary form of activity" [103, p. 9]. Also, when defining abilities and tracing their transformation into professionally important qualities, V. D. Shadrikov clarifies the characteristics or parameters of any activity-productivity, quality, reliability, and specifically (including empirically) traces how the PVC and the underlying abilities ensure that the subject meets certain parameters (requirements) of the activity when the subject focuses on them [230]. The main criterion is the preference criterion [ibid., p. 67], which, however, the subject sometimes has to minimize in order to carry out the activity not in the optimal way, but by those who have to carry it out in complex information or time conditions [ibid., p. 86]. In other words, periodization can be traced to the logic of staging in this case the problem of abilities: the first phase correlated abilities and activities, the second introduced ICR as a kind of transitional bridge between the skills and activities (its requirements), and the third capacity is determined not only according to individual criteria and criteria of social success activities, but according to the criterion of subjectively acceptable success. And, finally, the problem is radically transformed: both PVK and abilities are considered from the standpoint of their" use " by the individual in its way of correlation with activity. This transformation of the problem is paradigmatic in relation to the field of personality psychology and the whole of psychology.

In a similar functional way, K. A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya defines responsibility as a task that a person sets for himself when performing an activity - to keep at the level of a certain quality of its performance that meets the individual's claims for a certain time and in the presence of unforeseen difficulties [12, 75]. Similarly, it defines the very activity of the individual as its vital ability to retain itself as the subject of its life (or - in the case of inability - to turn into its passive performer) [11, 12].

In other words, is it about strong-willed qualities of the personality, its abilities, responsibility, her motivation, or the property to be the subject of life, the purpose of each of these personal "abilities" at the present stage of development of psychology of personality is given through the system of relations of the individual with the world of activity, value etc., depending on the specific "strategy" which personality you choose to implement these relations.

For example, in the system of conceptual analysis of V. D. Shadrikov, in some cases, the individual as a subject of activity "adheres to the principle of "sufficiency", and not to the principle of" maximum " [230, p.104], which it achieves in others. With regard to the use of the same abilities, a person can enter the path of their pure exploitation, for example, in creative professional activities, focusing in their motivation on the success achieved with their help, or choose a strategy for their professional improvement, a path that is labor-intensive and devoid of momentary success, but ultimately gives them a source of satisfaction other than success, a certain independence from the whims of professional fame, etc.

Such theoretical models, in which the studied parameters (or vectors of relations between these parameters) fit into a more General, dynamic and dependent on the individual as a subject (its choices, preferences, decisions) system (activities or relationships), are inextricably linked with the typological study of the individual and the construction of real typologies [9, 34, 69, 118, 144, 182, 207, 216, 221 we have traced the Fate of such typological studies from the first stages of the formation of Russian personality psychology, starting with Lazursky. Typological research can be divided into two main areas that will eventually be inextricably linked: one of them is aimed at building a typology (for one or another a priori basis) and the other - theoretical and phenomenological identification and generalization of existing types in reality. For example, in the period of the sixties, N. I. Reinwald defined three types:" Creator"," consumer "and" destroyer " [182]. Subsequently, it developed into a direction that aims to identify the bases, parameters, and structures that could be used as the basis for a typology that leads to a list of personality traits. So Reinwald identified the motivating, orienting, controlling, evaluating and controlling functions of the mental in relation to activity, as a system - forming factor of personality - orientation, and awareness, organization and intensity-as three main parameters that are end-to-end for all acts of activity, personality properties and its structure. The main idea of this typology, which is close to it, is to overcome the previous principle of personality structuring, in attempts to identify parameters that are cross-cutting for all levels of personality or personality properties.

The typology proposed by A. I. Krupnov is based on three integral variables that were identified by Nebylitsyn [151] as "the most General foundations of human individuality", namely: activity, orientation, and self-regulation. Basic personality traits such as initiative, curiosity, hard work, it integrates in the continuum of activity; responsibility, organization, etc. - in the continuum of self-regulation, etc., and each of the specific personality properties is considered as including informational-cognitive, emotional-evaluative, motivational-semantic, regulatory-volitional, operational-dynamic, productive-effective components [114, 115].

E. A. Golubeva, setting as her specific task the study of abilities and aptitudes, analyzes the General features of the typological approach and notes as one of the most important characteristics of Pavlov's typology the tendency to constantly compare the properties of GNI and ideas about specifically human types-the artist and the thinker. It offers a model that is based on three universal primary foundations of abilities: two-with reference to NS. Leites, who identified activity and self-regulation [124], and the third - with reference to Ananyev-orientation, and, in turn, relies on four cross-cutting parameters of the personality structure-emotionality, activity, self-regulation and motivation, including motivation, temperament, abilities and character as personality substructures [69, 70].

However, you should pay attention to the fact that this typology is based on the relationship between "organism and personality", and not "personality - activity", which must be taken into account for comparing different typologies. The concepts of self - regulation, activity, and - to a certain extent-orientation are end-to-end in the Golubev and krupnovsky typologies, despite the indication of different sources of their development. As Krupnov himself rightly notes, at this historical stage, "it is important not so much to compile lists of the most important personality traits in itself, as to develop theoretically justified criteria for their allocation" [115, p.32].

It is obvious that these typologies are based on a certain structural or structural-functional model of personality and its properties. The typological properties themselves turn out to be a manifestation of some cross-cutting parameters, among which most authors include emotionality as the most versatile and dynamic component or mechanism associated with almost all other parameters. The most important feature of the typology proposed by E. A. Golubeva is its connection with the measurement procedures of abilities. Thus, the synthesis of typologies of differential psychology and psychophysiology and personal typology is carried out, which it characterizes as an "individual typological approach" [69, p.80]. Back in 1969, V. M. Banshchikov and G. I. Isaev, during a conference devoted to the problem of personality, largely based on Rubinstein's idea of the relative independence of function from structure (and the possibility of functional changes in activity regardless of structure), expressed an interesting position on the typology of personality [159]. First, they noted the role identified by Ananyev and I. M. The palaeum of correlation Pleiades is a complex chain of connections between relationships and personality properties, intellectual and other mental functions, somatic and neurodynamic features of a person [159, p. 79]. Second, they expressed an important idea about the principle of hierarchical "removal" of features of some functions by functions (or properties) of another level. Third, they formulated a number of contradictions related to the self-movement of the individual and the hypothesis that the typology of the individual must first reveal its relations (and contradictions) with the environment.

We would comment on these considerations in such a way that psychology has developed two - in a certain sense, opposite ideas about the hierarchical laws of mental systems (primarily personality). One claims that higher-level patterns are transformed and specifically manifested at the lower level. The second is that the higher "removes" the lower - in the sense, in particular, that the properties of temperament can be transformed and changed at the highest level (although V. M. Banshchikov himself believes that " certain types of higher nervous activity relate mainly only to certain characters... it is very difficult to develop a different character based on such typological features" [159, p. 80].

We support the idea of the possibility of the higher levels of personal organization" removing " the features (and patterns) of the lower ones, and their radical transformation. But we believe that such "removal" is not a universal law, but a manifestation of the very personality traits that are subject to typology. This depends on the method of self-regulation, self-organization of the individual, thanks to which its higher or lower levels gain the "upper hand". In turn, agreeing with the third idea, expressed in a very General form, about a typology that covers not the personality itself, but its relation to reality, we suggest "starting" with the construction of typologies of the higher life "abilities" of the individual associated with his life path [9, 11, 12]).

The typological method of personality research developed by us was also based on its specific theoretical model, which, however, covered the highest level of personality organization and did not have the main purpose of tracing the vertical connection with the lower levels of personal organization, as the typology of E. A. Golubeva. Our typology did not cover the ratio "organism-personality" and not the ratio "personality-activity", but"personality - life path". We chose an extremely broad version of the basis: namely, we defined activity as a vital ability of the individual, not only the ability to work, but its main characteristic was associated with the way of self-expression (objectification) of the individual in life [11, 12]. Thus, if in the above-mentioned typologies, three characteristics were chosen as the basis for the definition of personality (even with different initial relations in which it was defined: "personality-activity" or "organism-personality") - activity, self-regulation, and orientation (as the highest level of personal integration, according to Ananyev, Rubinstein, and others), we, relying on repeated criticism of the concept of orientation (it was criticized as a dichotomy of collectivism and individualism, as too amorphous a description that does not include wealth, contradictory complexity, and interactivity of the individual), replaced it in our chosen system of analysis with activity. The concept of activity was associated with the definition of a person as a subject of life and with the measure of its becoming a subject. It was assumed that activity - depending on the measure of becoming a person by the subject-has a typological character. For a more specific definition of activity than was the case when describing orientation, we identified two main forms of activity-initiative and responsibility, and empirically investigated the relationship and nature of these forms. This study (and the corresponding typologies of initiative and responsibility) revealed a more subtle relationship between external and internal determinants of activity [75]. In addition, we developed a hypothetical model of the activity structure. Namely, activity was defined as a semantic integral of personal claims and achievements, but, unlike K. Levin and F. Hoppe, we included self-regulation as a mediating link [5, 11, 12]. Thus, self-regulation, in contrast to the above typologies and the way of combining concepts, coming from Nebylitsyn, Leites, and others, was considered not as a series of activities, but as an operational and performing component and mechanism of activity, and the latter - as a vital ability of the individual [12].

Defining activity as a semantic integral of claims, achievements, and self-regulation of the individual, we took into account the position of A.V. and V. A. Petrovsky, who, defining activity as one of the most important personal characteristics proper, first, insisted on the need to differentiate the concepts and essence of activity and activity, and secondly, considered it as a supra-situational, i.e. fourthly, attention was paid not only to its socially useful Result, but also to its subjective acceptability, success For the subject (A.V. Petrovsky, V. D. Shadrikov, O. A. Konopkin, etc.). in Other words, if the concept of orientation in the end turned out to be associated only with the value-ideological socialist orientation, i.e. in fact, it was reduced to the characteristic of the individual's consciousness, and not its real activity (reality showed that the collectivistic orientation of a significant part of society was combined with a passive attitude to work, the psychology of performance), the concept of activity, revealed through claims, included (among other things) orientation to one or another way of self-realization of the individual in Claims, as our research has shown, are themselves an integral characteristic of an individual's orientation to social approval of the result and method of its activity, and to the way it is included in joint activities, and the position in the group, and the nature of its behavior in group relationships. Moreover, this orientation of claims is quite abstract (meaning social norms) and, at the same time, includes personal and subjective acceptability of the very quality of activity and ways to overcome the difficulties associated with it and ways to include it in various group relationships. However, claims are not fatal (as the collectivist and individualistic orientation seemed to be), but have a direct and inverse relationship with self-regulation, with "achievements" (in Levin's terminology), and with satisfaction (in our terminology).

Self-regulation as an operational mechanism for the implementation of claims is a flexible mechanism that embodies not a fixed, but an existential (in Rubinstein's terminology) or procedural (in Brushlinsky's understanding) essence of the individual. Claims are only an ideal projection of the personality, which is existentially realized by self-regulation, and the latter in our understanding (in contrast to the understanding of differential psychology and psychophysiology) covers not only the" inner contour " of the personality (even if we keep in mind different levels of its organization), but a contour that combines the external and internal. It is thanks to self-regulation that the most daring act can be performed impromptu, and not intentionally, which then generalizes (according to Rubinstein) turns into a stable intention to behave boldly. It is necessary to identify how close these claims are to V. A. Yadov's understanding of personal dispositions. But the main thing is that self-regulation is the vertical in personal organization and self-organization, which in a certain way subordinates and correlates all levels of personal organization. This understanding of the" tasks " and functions of self-regulation overcomes the alternative identified by Heckhausen, when some personal concepts consider the determination of personality, and others-its situational conditionality [223]. This alternative attributes statics to the personality itself, and dynamics to external conditions and situations. In fact, as has been repeatedly noted, the personality is both stable, which is recorded in its definition as a stable mental warehouse of a person, and changeable. However, in relation to its activity, we can speak about the stability of its claims rather in the sense of their certainty and about dynamism - self - regulation-in the sense of consistency of its external and internal conditions. Satisfaction, in turn, is included in their integral, since it " evaluates "the resulting" product " of claims to regulation, intentions for the way they are implemented, according to certain criteria.

The semantic integral of activity is due to its unified value-semantic character. It is claims and self-regulation, providing a way to implement them, solving the problem of coordinating the system of internal conditions with each other and the internal system and external conditions with each other, in our opinion, form the very personal meaning that has not been definitively defined in the concept of A. N. Leontiev and his successors (D. A. Leontiev). The volitional function is a component of self-regulation, giving the activity and activity in which it is embodied, certainty and holding, one might say, "constituting" its form, as Kalin rightly noted. However, the coordinating, coordinating, figuratively speaking, "conducting" function of self-regulation, which leads to a certain order, an organized state, does not exclude the fact that it also resolves contradictions that require a volitional or conscious decision (or choice).

The typology we built on these initial theoretical foundations was progressive and open, since it was more of an empirical methodology or strategy for studying higher personal abilities, in particular activity, which we differentiated into two main forms - initiative and responsibility. It was based not on structural, but on functional principles, and therefore the type-forming parameters were not set a priori, but represented the desired, which was found in an empirical study that models situations like a natural experiment (K. A. Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, 1988, 1991). In more than ten years of research, typologies of initiative, responsibility, semantic integral of personal activity, personal ability to organize time, social thinking of the individual, and a number of others were obtained, the comparison of which made it possible to develop a typological method or strategy [11, 12, 34, 71, 75, 118, 207 etc.].

In the sixties and seventies, specifically oriented personality research rarely led to the construction of typologies. For example, the Western typology of managers that appeared in the field of management psychology was then concretized on the basis of domestic research [92], but in the last period, obtaining typological results has become widespread, in some cases demonstrating a phenomenological picture of the diversity of personal characteristics, in others - indicating the fundamental need to study the personality in a typological way.

However, the typological method of research is not the only one, since another way to identify the multifunctionality of personal properties and qualities is the strategy of identifying the leading or system-forming factor (or vector). Built on this principle of the work of the two above-identified authors, Kalina and Sosnovsky, although they are dedicated to different personality characteristics, the first volitional regulation of activity, the second ratio of motive and meaning. This principle of activity analysis was once proposed by A. N. Leontiev, highlighting different relationships in the system of activity. These authors identify and analyze the vectors "motive-goal", "motive-need", "motive-object", "motive-meaning", "motive-emotion", etc.. As a result, strategic principles are established, according to which some components should be studied independently of each other, and then correlated through a whole system of mediating relations, others - improperly bring together or identify with each other as a motive and subject (according to Sosnovsky), and others, for example, the relationship of meaning and emotions, according to Vilyunas [59], "are interpreted as manifestations of different languages that Express a single world of the biased in the psyche and have different levels of generalization" (quoted in [199, p. 49]). With this method of theoretical analysis, it is possible to determine the same phenomenon (for example, the positive or negative quality of volitional regulation) by different determinants or its determinism by several dependencies at once. "Therefore, it is hardly advisable to determine the level of effectiveness of volitional regulation without first studying the typological properties of the nervous system. - writes Kalin, - otherwise, we can take for the manifestation of positive or negative qualities of volitional regulation completely different properties (for example, low emotional excitability to qualify as a good endurance) "[103, p. 24]. It is this kind of analytical-synthetic strategies that can generate a system of hypotheses that require empirical verification.

Other types of research, for example, the motivational system of the individual (V. G. Aseev), are initially more synthetic in nature, since to determine this system, the bases or "axes" that go beyond its immediate components, such as a separate motive or meaning or need, and even their vectors are distinguished. These grounds are identified using a kind of operational methodology that has developed in Russian science. As motivational tendencies or "axis" stands for the so-called substantial dynamic, interpreted in the categories accepted (Rusalov, etc.) to differentiate actually reflected the content and the dynamic mechanisms by which they are reflected, or for differentiation and value-semantic levels of personal organization and proper functional (e.g., temperamental). Further Aseev is based on the principle of actual and potential, developing it more specifically transonline the structure of the motivational system and private motives, having "relevant Central zone and two extreme potential (extreme), one of which is the activity meaningful or dynamic type is not needed because of the availability of relevant external circumstances and the other impossible or excessive in the subjective representation of a person" [24, p. 5-6]. This idea is extremely close to the above principle of Shadrikov's analysis of activity, according to which subjective preferences (claims, according to Abulkhanova-Slavskaya) are minimized due to the complexity of the external circumstances of the activity. In other words, the subject does not choose the optimal strategy that meets his claims, but the appropriate difficult circumstances. The third "dimension" or "axis" of motivation is made up by Aseev on the temporal basis of "past-present-future". And then they consider the combination or divergence of axes, which gives a qualitative characteristic of the motivational system, absorbing the phenomenological richness of its real functioning (in contrast to traditional schemes that capture only one "dimension" of motivation). The motivational system turns out to be described as in the desirability modality, i.e. motivation initiated by the subject, as well as necessity (which was noted by Chkhartishvili and others), both in the modality of satisfaction and dissatisfaction, both in a certain normal state, and in a state of functional deprivation and overload, both in a positive and negative quality. As a result, the described motivational system is a theory and strategy for studying "significant" experiences and significance (approaches to which were outlined By F. V. Bassin and N. F. Dobrynin [29, 81, 82]). Such a research strategy is close to that implemented by V. N. Myasishchev, who, without building a typology of personality, however, was able to give such characteristics of its relations that absorbed the variety of really existing personal "profiles".

In V. G. Aseev's motivational concept, a variant of the system approach has found its concrete embodiment, which takes into account not only the harmony of the system, but also its contradiction between the external and internal [22; 24].

As noted above, the highest value-worldview level in the hierarchical personal structure attracted the attention of psychologists, philosophers and sociologists, which expressed the tendency of convergence of ethics and personality psychology already in the 60s (O. G. Drobnitsky, V. E. Chudnovsky, V. A. Yadov, etc.). In the 80's, a humanistic trend in the approach to personality is growing [68, 205], which, in particular, is manifested in the interest in the internal mechanisms of communication between personal and moral (N. V. Dubrovina), moral and intellectual mechanisms (Brushlinsky, Volovikova, Temnova), in the study of personality ideals (Chudnovsky, etc.), and a whole range of phenomenological and theoretical problems: overcoming either internal (in particular, related to mental health or borderline States of the individual) contradictions and difficulties (zeygarnik), or life crises (antsyferova, zeygarnik, Bratus, Vasilyuk, A., and others.)

The first direction of research is carried out in the laboratory of personality Of the Institute of psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences Antsyferova, Brush-Linsky, Sign, Dark, S. K. Nartova-Bochaver and others. Simultaneously with theoretical and empirical research, two applied areas are included here, namely, the Academic school of psychotherapy (E. A. Spirkina) and almost simultaneously the laboratory of post-traumatic stress psychology (Tarabrina), whose tasks include not only the development and development of psychodiagnostic methods, but also practical and consulting assistance to people in severe post - traumatic States-participants and victims of the Chernobyl disaster and the Afghan war. Specifically focused on the study of personality type "Afghan" (participant of the war in Afghanistan) is a Landmark study showed that the life and personal crisis, these people associated with a huge set of real circumstances of the tragic war and at the same time with the change of their psychology and consciousness, which forms a barrier of misunderstanding others and becomes a source of deprivation [98].

Psychotherapy centers and consultations are created in Moscow state University and other institutions with the active participation of Stolin, Bratus, Vasilyuk, D. A. Leontiev, and others, who simultaneously act as initiators and leaders of the Association of humanistic psychology. For many years, L. A. Petrovskaya has been developing a theoretical and practical direction that provides assistance to individuals who have difficulties in communication [155]. In the system of Russian Academy of education creates complex program "Spiritual revival of person and education", the scientific leaders of which becomes V. S. Mukhina, guide research created in the system RAO Institute of personality development [149, etc.].

Having built a hypothetical-theoretical model of self-consciousness, V. S. Mukhina became interested in identifying the parameters of this model in a real person and especially in individuals with pronounced ethnic characteristics of self-consciousness Living in conditions of deprivation. These long-term studies have shown a picture of certain deformations of self-consciousness and the "I-concept", which indicates the need for certain pedagogical, social and cultural strategies to optimize their development.

Thus, in the current period of development of the problem of personality, its research is located in a continuum that has one pole optimality, the highest levels of development and achievements, and the other - pessimal, crisis, regressive or related to overcoming difficulties.

The eighties are a period of Renaissance of the concept of the subject, which was developed by Rubinstein and Uznadze in the twenties, later concretized by Ananyev, and since the seventies-the moment of publication of Rubinstein's book "Man and the world" (1973) became widely distributed and was concretized and developed by his students - Abulkhanova-Slavskaya and Brushlinsky. Currently, it has become the main research area of the Institute of psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences for at least two five-year periods [51]. If in the previous periods of development of Russian psychology the essence of the humanistic approach to personality was manifested either in the ideal of a harmoniously developed personality and the desire to form it[57, 61, 62, 73, 111, 138, 172 in the 70-90's, in the context of the category of subject, which has become a whole problem area, the consideration of the individual acquires a pronounced axiological emphasis. For the research direction headed by Brushlinsky, the Central task was not to establish certain values or worldview in the individual, which includes moral and ethical principles, but, on the one hand, a more classical one, and on the other, a very urgent task of identifying how the individual solves moral problems and tasks. These studies, which were theoretical and empirical in nature, correlated with Kolberg's concept of levels of moral development of the individual. Was actually identified personal determinants of the thinking process in the first place. Secondly, a very subtle and ambiguous correlation between the intellectual and moral development of the child was found, which refuted Kohlberg's thesis about intellectual outstripping moral development (quite in accordance with the cognitive paradigm) [59]. In children, a typology was obtained in which the first type, which did not reach a certain level of intellectual development (indeed, in accordance with the Kohlberg scheme), did not consider moral tasks as actually problematic. But the second type with an equally low level of intellectual development, finding itself not in a purely theoretical, but in a life situation (the presence of contradictions between parents in the family), provided that personal involvement in moral situations demonstrated (in contrast to Kolberg) the leading role of moral development, prompted by the situation of moral contradictions,to the level of which the intellectual And the main argument for deepening the concept of Kolberg was the identification of a type that, not being intellectually developed, solved moral problems "speculatively", personally detached, which testified to his moral deafness (Volovikova, O. p. Nikolaeva). Based on the approach to consciousness as a vital, personal ability, the problem of social thinking of the individual as a way of functioning of consciousness was raised. And in the study of A. N. Slavskaya, the transition from interpretation, which was mainly studied by hermeneutics in translations and texts as a condition for the continuity of generations, to interpretation as the ability of social thinking of the individual, as the most dynamic mechanism of consciousness, is revealed, investigated and justified. In interpretation, different types have different combinations of intellectual and value-based mechanisms and relationships [207, 208].

Antsyferova develops a dynamic concept of personality, which raises the problem of the personality going beyond its limits, examines the diachronics of its deployment in life and activity, the conditions for achieving its optimal vital and activity state, the search for new motives, and the conditions for matching the nature of activity [18]. At the beginning of the next decade, based on the results of research conducted under her leadership, she considers not so much personal development as a manifestation of General patterns of development, not only personal development as the dynamics of life and its periods, but development as the highest form of its dynamics, as its qualitative transformation. It is associated with an increase in the level of organization, with an increase in the ability to exercise oneself in a more complex system of life relationships and perceive the world in a new way: more structured, more integrated and meaningful. It highlights the special ability of the individual to develop - the ability to retain and preserve all the positive content of their history, accumulate the results of development, actualize the potential content of their consciousness and create something new in the world and in themselves, thereby expanding the zone of potential. Qualifying your approach as psychobiographically, it summarizes the research results of "subjective picture of life" as a reflection in human consciousness of the past, present and future, subjective experience of certain periods of human life in their intensity events, which underlay the skill "mental age" (A. A. Kronik), the leading role of values that underlie the mechanisms of life choices (L. S. Kravchenko), the role of cognitive style, personality (impulsivity-reflexivity, as George.Kagan) in formal-dynamic and content-semantic goal-setting [224].

A recent study performed in the categories of content-semantic and formal-dynamic, was an important addition and a certain development of the concept of motivation Aseeva, as it also revealed features relevant and irrelevant areas of significance, individual areas of success-failure, time-amplitude retention goals, as well as concretization of the General concept of the activity of Abulkhanova-Slavske as semantic integral personality. In each type (cognitive style) of personality, a special combination of the level of activity with the level of self - control was revealed, as well as radicalism-conservatism, expressed in more or less independence, which was manifested in the variety of parameters and architectonics of the goal-setting system of each type. It is essential to emphasize that goal-setting, which in the Russian tradition was inextricably linked with activity, here appeared as a personal life ability [223] and allowed us to address a new problem of self-affirmation of the individual [222].

Summarizing in a laboratory study, Antsiferova accentuates the problems of life-personal difficulties, crises, barriers: the hypothesis of I. I. Chesnokova about sensitive periods in the development of moral identity, which are prepared by the contradictions in the moral experience of the individual, the problematic moral situations [226], these studies E. S. Kalmykova on the disharmony of mental life (as a result of the introduction it is important for the individual conflicting positions and opinions), the results of the research the limits of human capabilities, showing the types of content-semantic and functional-dynamic barriers (Aseev, E. D. Tumanov). The most important conclusion is that it is necessary to prepare a person for the difficulties of implementing behavior regulated by higher needs in connection with the features of ascetic and hedonistic life-need strategies [78, 79].

These generalizations led Antsyferova to discuss not only abstract and theoretical problems of the life path, but also actual problems of difficult life situations, which were characteristic of the second half of the twentieth century, the psychological problem of" coping " with these situations, identifying constructive, non-constructive and generative strategies for such coping. It provides a deep classification of such coping strategies related to the psychological characteristics of consciousness and behavior of the individual, summarizing the experience of world psychology in the development of this theoretical and practical problem. The typological approach to personality allows her to formulate a position about the ambiguous influence of difficult life situations on the personality, which ultimately acts as a new sound of Rubinstein's thesis about the personality as a set of internal conditions, about the personal mediation of the process of human interaction with the world.

In the context of the Rubinstein paradigm, a study of an adult developing personality is undertaken, which fills the huge gap in the above-mentioned Russian science of personality, revealing the features of the movement towards personal psychological maturity [204]. This gap remained unconscious, theoretically not reflected by psychologists, although theories of the personality of the child, the adolescent [217], and the General theory of personality continued to be developed, but there was no theory of the adult personality. Therefore, the problems of self-determination, development, and self-actualization of the individual were considered quite abstractly outside the definition of criteria and qualities of adulthood and maturity. Integrating Myasishchev's model of personality as a relationship, Rubinstein's triad of personal relations to the world, other people, and oneself, Starovoitenko identifies a system of personal life relations that includes intellectual activity-productive, social, professional, moral, and aesthetic relations to life, the system - forming center of which is the unity of intellectual, professional, and moral relations, and the basis for the development of this triad is the "reflexive attitude of the individual to himself - the subject of life" [204, p.8]. On this basis, she developed a method of personality development, which consists in value-semantic and operational modeling of reflection and subsequent translation of reflexive models into ways of self-knowledge and self-change of the individual, which is self-communicating and problematic. Here, Abulkhanova's ideas about problematization as a way to resolve contradictions are specifically theoretically and methodically implemented, forming a typology of scientists who became respondents to the study. The research method has two-fold-diagnostic and actually developing functions, expanding the consciousness of the individual, its reflexive capabilities and acquires serious significance for the practice of counseling, education and self-development.

Finally, personal development ceases to be understood only as the development of the child's personality as a result of pedagogical influences and is associated with the adult personality's ability to self-knowledge, with the possibilities of its reflection and consciousness [193, 194]. Thus, finally, two areas of psychology that had been developing in isolation for many years - creative thinking and personality psychology-were connected.

The appeal to the adult personality is not so much a contribution to age psychology, but rather the achievement of a greater degree of concretization in the study of personality, filling a certain gap in science. Ahead of the subsequent presentation, we can say that in recent years in Russian psychology there has been some interest in the problems of gerontology. One of the first attempts to approach these problems in the aspect of personal aging was made by Antsyferova based on the analysis and interpretation of extensive foreign materials and concerns various personal "ways" of organizing life in old age.

Apart from the historical sequence in the development of personal issues, it can be noted that there was a previously outlined differentiation of a number of areas of study of personality:

1st direction of personality research in activity (or sometimes, to be more precise, the study of personality activity modalities: target, setting, dispositional, need-motivational, and, of course, abilities);

The 2nd direction of personality research in communication, and the latter also differentiates into real communication and features of including the individual and the ideal - " inter "and even" meta " individual layer of personal projections [86, 87, 164, etc.].

Within the first direction, in turn, research on personality and personal characteristics of cognitive activity is gradually differentiated (for example, the study of motivation for educational activities undertaken by A. K. Markova [139]) from research on personality in activity. By the latter they mean professional, labor, i.e. practical [140]. As before, in line with this trend, proponents of the activity approach (in its Leontief version) carry out research even of such higher personal formations as consciousness [100, 166, etc.].

These include a study by V. F. Petrenko and his students. They studied the psychosemantics of personality consciousness by the method of semantic differential, the special subject of which was not the personality in its scientific and psychological understanding, but the implicit theory of personality that exists in everyday consciousness (more precisely, not so much a theory as an emotional and figurative representation of the personality). The most valuable is the special empirical nature of this kind of work, since the main emphasis is placed on testing and developing experimental means of studying personality (Petrenko, A. T. Shmelev, E. T. Sokolova, etc.). an Important feature of such studies is that, when performed in the activity paradigm, they directly connect with the actual communicative modalities of the individual, since, for example, in this study, we are talking about the way of representation in the consciousness of the personality of another person.

But, at the same time, within the direction of research "personality - activity" there is a differentiation, which, in our opinion, was insufficiently carried out in the concept of A. N. Leontiev: the internal activity characteristics of the individual are differentiated from the problems of including the individual in real activity.

Shadrikov's monograph makes a new step in understanding the psychological system of activity. Its essence lies in the fact that the structure of activity that existed in psychology turned out to be quite abstract, which led to the difficulty or inability to relate it to the structure of work, professional activity and its numerous types, i.e., to the inability to project it on the model of real human activity. Shadrikov implements a functional approach to activity, based on the ideas of Anokhin and Rubinstein, and on this basis reveals the complexity of it as a functional system, linking the method of its implementation with the subject, highlighting not only the traditional motive and goal, but also personal characteristics expressed in the level of claims and the nature of achievements, criteria for subjective acceptability-unacceptability of the result. It also emphasizes the principle of putting forward criteria for decision-making by the subject, drawing up activity programs and changing them-depending on certain conditions of psychological strategies. The author considers the process of formation of the person of an activity as a process of qualitative transformation, the reorganization included in it and ensure her mental and personal properties in accordance with the activity requirements and criteria of the personality itself. It is highly significant that when describing the requirements of activity, the author does not limit them to a particular empirical description, but puts forward a new formula-normative methods of social activity that meet the characteristics of activity as labor, the parameters of which are productivity, quality and reliability. This monograph reveals "the essence of the process of transition from mental properties to PVK" [230, p. 78], the mechanism of restructuring personal abilities, their development, coordination and new subordination in connection with the requirements of the activity and the formation of the individual as a subject. The process of restructuring abilities, making the ICR is traced at different levels - abilities themselves (micro level), and at the level of the individual (macro level) and the latter is described in terms of choice of profession, training, learning and inclusion in the profession. Thus, the concept of systemogenesis of activity, put forward by Shadrikov earlier, receives here not only a fundamentally new development, but also reflects a new level of formulation of the problem of the relationship of the individual, his abilities, mental processes and activities.

From this work and from the works Of V. N. Druzhinin [88, 89], new strategies for the study of, for example, abilities that meet the modern level of psychological culture, combining the rigor of the actual diagnostic procedures with a functional approach to their "measurement". Personal and mental qualities, properties, abilities are studied and" measured " not by themselves, but in different conditions of functioning of the individual. This type of research requires extremely complex, including mathematical modeling, but only it ensures the reliability of the data obtained.

Personal characteristics in the highest sense of the word (and not only motivation, abilities, etc.) are put forward as decisive by psychologists of professional activity, such as its most complex and risky types as flight. V. A. Ponomarenko, who recreated in detail the specifics of the professional work of a pilot, starting from entering the profession and ending with the problems of professional longevity, defends (including primarily in practical terms) the need for knowledge and human rights, proves the role of the individual as a guarantee of reliability, reveals a very special spiritual and moral type of his personality. Thus, highly qualified professionals from the fields of labor psychology "meet" the problem of personality, returning to it the meaning and pathos lost in speculative theories. The same applies to the works of E. A. Klimov, who grounded the personal approach to activity in developing the problem of individual style.

The second direction primarily includes the works of A. A. Bodalev, which were also carried out in a specific research way-the problems of human perception, which to a certain extent opened the development of a range of problems of interpersonal perception of cognitive processes in communication, social intelligence (V. N. Kunitsyn) and personality in communication itself (B. F. Lomov, A. U. Kharash, V. A. Koltsova, etc.).

In this section, we can identify the trend that was noted above in relation to the direction of "personality-activity": the problem of" personality - communication "was differentiated into two main areas - communicative or" interindividual " projections, attribution of personality and personality in communication, in real communications. In our opinion, both of these directions were oriented by the most important theoretical formula of Lomov, who added the "subject-subject" relationship to the subject - object relations characteristic of activity.

In the recently published book by A. B. Orlov " Psychology of personality and human essence: paradigms, projections, practices "(M. 1995), it is quite rightly noted that in the practice of teaching and educating a child, the latter acted as"his material or object". Let's add to this, first of all, that this was basically a training practice built in the Vygotsky paradigm. Secondly, let us doubt that here an adult (teacher, educator) acted as a subject (as Orlov believes). Under the above-mentioned system, it was only a subject of pedagogical activity, but not a subject that projects and educates the child's personality. Under all conditions, Lomov's categorization of the "other" as a subject allowed us to develop the problem of perception of the other person as a person, which was set by A. A. Bodalev [42, 43], and, first, to raise the problem of attitude to him as a subject, and, secondly, to continue the principal line outlined by Ananyev to identify the qualitative specifics of the subject of knowledge in contrast to the subject of communication and from the subject of activity. This does not mean that different modalities of human relations with the world are separate from each other, but the identification of different ways of connecting knowledge, activity and communication within each of these modalities should not, in our opinion, blur the specifics of the subject. We believe that calling communication an activity, i.e. blurring the specifics of each of the manifestations of personality, does not clarify or deepen the knowledge of their essence. This position was expressed by Lomov in a well-known discussion about the relationship between communication and activity.

The problem of treating another person as a subject, not a means, an object in terms of morally and ethically put Rubinstein [188]. Petrovsky made an attempt to reveal a peculiar form of idealization of the relationship of a person to another as a "contribution" to it, i.e., influence on the consciousness, behavior and personality of another person, which he associates with the need to be a person (the need for personalization) and the ability (realized by the corresponding actions) to be a person [164].

However, in our opinion, his statement that if this ability is atrophied, a person ceases to be a person is debatable [164, p. 355]. As noted, this discussion was started by Davydov, who believes that a person is a creative ("free") and talented person who creates new forms of social life. Davydov's position is radical, since he considers only free, creative, and socially useful people to be individuals. It is not difficult to see here a contradiction to the point of view of Lisina, who suggests, on the contrary, to reduce the age limit of the manifestation of personality in the child as much as possible. There is, of course, the problem of regression and destruction of personality (alcoholics, drug addicts, deviants). Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the concepts. You can start it with the statement that a person is not born, but becomes, but becomes twice, and, in our opinion, three times.

The first formation is the formation of the child's personality, which, like an adult (even an ordinary one), cannot be deprived of the "title" of personality. Even developmental deficits are deformations of personality development, not mental processes. The second becoming cannot simply be called the transformation of a child into an adult. It is associated with the development of a certain way of life by a person, with objectification, self-expression, but not only in activities, in another person, but in all forms of life (not only social, but also personal). This method, like the child's personality, can be deficient, flawed, deforming, but deforming the personality. Finally, the third development is the achievement of an individual peaks, however, are not necessarily socially useful and acceptable, but the top opportunities, the criteria of which is the optimal realization of the identity of their potentials. This third level Ananyev considered an individual, and Davydov-a person. (Perhaps we could say more precisely " a person in the highest sense of the word..."). Among the criteria of the last level are those that Rubinstein had in mind when he wrote that he is closer to the concept of " Man "with a capital letter than the more scientific concept of" personality": namely, the rise of a person to the highest level of his development, his ethics, humanity. But each of the three authors has in mind different aspects and criteria of personality "in the highest sense of the word": Ananyev - the flourishing of this particular personality, its realization, Rubinstein-the victory of the moral and ethical principle in the individual, Davydov-creativity, social productivity.

A number of studies have taken shape in a special-relatively new and at the same time having its origins area of scientific research-acmeology, which implements Ananyev's ideas about the psychological maturity of the individual and the peak of not only career, but the entire life path, its peak - "Acme" (N. V. Kuzmina, A. A. Derkach, Bodalev, Klimov, etc.). General acmeology is aimed at identifying complex patterns of adult personality development, taking into account progressive and regressive ways of development, developing criteria for optimal levels of development, its Mature perfect forms, strategies and ways to achieve the subject's peaks of life. This is a theoretical and applied discipline designed not only to investigate and diagnose stages of development, but also to promote it. Special or applied acmeology has its own pedagogical, age-related, and professional branches. An essential result of the formation of acmeology for the psychology of work and professions is a departure from the purely activity-based impersonal paradigm in the analysis of professions and professionograms, attention to the personality of a professional and the stages of its formation [154].

Thus, it seems that we can talk about different stages of personality development without linking the General concept to one of them, first of all. We need to talk about the progressive and regressive development and state of the individual (as Myasishchev said about its norm and pathology), but at the same time it is about the individual, secondly. And, finally, third, it is possible, as the authors do, (since the author's concepts of personality still prevail in Russian psychology) to offer various criteria as essential for determining personality, without contrasting them with the definitions of other authors. The more multidimensional and multi-dimensional this set of definitions is, the deeper our insight into the essence of personality will be.

Thus, the problem of defining the concept of personality must include another aspect of its consideration - "personality in development", taking into account both age periods and constructive and destructive forms of development and its levels. As mentioned, Soviet psychology has begun in one sense of the word with a study of the development of child's personality, although it is generally agreed that despite achievements in the study of psychology of childhood, Zaporozhets, Elkonin, etc., the only complete theory of personality of the child in its development is the concept of Bozovic. The most up - to - date and complete re-creation of the personality at a certain stage of its development, based on empirical research, is a long-term study of the personality by D. I. Feldstein [217]. In his works, a clear line is drawn between the definition of the essence of personality and different directions, forms and ways of its development. As a result of a thorough empirical study of adolescents, he constructed a typology of the regressive direction of adolescent development, which is correlated with the ideal model of optimal development, which is of value for teachers and educators [217, p.231-232].

A whole complex of studies of personality development in the modern system of training and education is conducted at the Psychological Institute of the Russian Academy of education under the leadership of V. V. Rubtsov, the goal is to create a system of personality-oriented education (almost the same name sounds just published book by I. S. Yakimanskaya [237].

Similarly, the psychology of work and professions puts forward the personality as a Central concept and essence, without which it is impossible to explain any of the phenomena of this area of human life, and pedagogical psychology moves towards the psychology of personality with its ideas of the need for research and design by a teacher of personality, etc. (N. V. Kuzmina, A. A. Rean, N. T. Selezneva, etc.).

V. I. Slobodchikov justified the concept that expands the understanding of the relationship between intra - and intermodalities of personality, based on Rubinstein's position on the origin of the category "we" in relation to "I". This theoretical study leads to a more precise understanding of the individual, because in contrast to most points of view, which considered it from the very beginning as a separate and opposed to society being, Slobodchikov believes that the first stage of a child's life is his indissoluble unity of "we" with the mother, who acts as an intermediary in his relationship with the world [203]. This concretization of one of the important stages of personality development, in turn, was based on the methodological recognition (also following Rubinstein) of the ontological, existential nature of the subjective, which was actually denied by the Widespread concept of consciousness, activity, and personality as ideal [101].

In addition to the aforementioned aspects of the study of personality in activity, communication, research and development (including different Forms and levels of the latter), there is another that can be attributed to the theories of an average level, similar to the categorization adopted in sociology. This level deals with a real person, that is, living in certain conditions, in a certain era, in a certain society. However, research on the real person today, in turn, is carried out in three rather differentiating directions. The first direction that was mentioned in connection with the analysis of Petrenko's works is cross-cultural research of implicit concepts of personality, i.e. ideas about personality in everyday consciousness, and not in science. The second is the study not so much of a culturally specific prototype, but of real different personality types living in a given society. Finally, the third direction, research in the conventional sense of the word, but dealing with a real person is psychodiagnostics, a direction that has received some development in recent decades. In the works of A. G. Shmelev, E. Yu. Artemieva, L. N. sobchik and others adapted foreign personal methods to the domestic population, raised the level of psychological psychodiagnostic culture (as already noted, Rusalov adapted the well-known Kettell test). However, in reality, domestic psychodiagnostic methods are very rare (for example, methods for diagnosing Druzhinin's abilities). It is in the field of personality diagnostics and the use of foreign personal methods to study the personalities of Russian society that the problem of their inconsistency with the type of personality of Russian society is revealed.

Modern interest in psychodiagnostics is connected not only with its practical value; - it marks the need for psychology and psychologists to turn to a real person and solve this problem. One of the leading experts in the field of modern psychodiagnostics notes that "in the diagnosis of certain properties and features of the individual, the social environment in which these properties and features are formed and manifested is not yet sufficiently taken into account" [53, p.25]. The prospect of its development is further improvement of the functional-dynamic system approach to the individual, which is expressed in the need to study it in real conditions of functioning.

Such functional research models of personality are characteristic of a number of the mentioned works: Druzhinin, as well as, for example, V. A. Marasanova, who compared the types of accentuated personalities with the real conditions of their functioning in the activities of athletes, and E. V. Egorova-Gantman, who collected a huge diagnostic material on the typological characteristics of the personalities of American presidents and compared their types with key international situations characteristic of the period of their presidency in terms of optimality-non-optimality of their functioning, etc.

In some specific areas of psychology, the second and third directions converge with each other, for example, in the field of political psychology, the prototypes of political parties (Petrenko) and leaders inherent in everyday consciousness are simultaneously identified, and then certain typologies of the latter are built. Under all conditions, there was a saturation of personal characteristics with those that are a priority for the Russian mentality. The psychological portraits of the individual that Kuzmin was still building allow us to move more and more away from the ideologized universal and utopian type of personality of the Soviet person, characteristic of the era of totalitarianism. They, on the one hand, enrich the most theoretical model of personality, on the other, allow us to understand new aspects of the functioning of the individual in society, and not those that were outlined by the schematic triad transferred from American textbooks to the domestic soil: "personality - society", "personality - group", "personality - personality". Thus, some studies raise the problem of how the Russian prototype of the "smart man" is transmitted from one generation to another (from teachers to schoolchildren), what features are lost, what are added (N. L. Smirnova). In others - what social influences were exerted by the stereotype of the "image of the Afghan personality" (Signs), in the third - how the nature of family relations (harmonious or conflict) and national traditions influences the formation of a particular type of cognitive and moral development (Volovikova, Nikolaeva).

The research, greatly enriching the theoretical model of personality, and with those facing the study of a real person and receiving typological data are work.E. Kharlamenkova, exploring personality styles, goal setting, and later the types of self-expression [222]. In the first study, it was possible to overcome the theoretically fixed scheme, according to which the subject of goal-setting was the activity itself, and not the individual, and to reveal the specifics of conservatism-radicalism inherent in domestic personality types. In the second case, the typology of self-affirmation that actually exists in Russian reality is simultaneously revealed, and thanks to this, its theoretically fundamental mechanisms are revealed, and the scientific idea of this personal phenomenon itself is enriched.

The typological method, or typology, which is the result of a specific study, thus allows us to overcome the abstract schematism of theoretical models of personality, which is to a certain extent characteristic of Russian psychology, to reduce the field of theoretical and specific research models obtained on certain populations, samples, enriching both levels of psychology. The typological method, or more generally, the research strategy, is a kind of generalized version of personality diagnostics. However, if in the classical diagnosis in a real person there is a set of certain a priori qualities set by one or another researcher and tool, then the typological method reveals which complexes of unknown qualities form a particular type. This complex is an internal mechanism of the individual, developed by it as a result of the way of life implemented or achieved by it in a particular society.

At the present stage, this is the typological method developed in the laboratory of personality psychology Of the Institute of psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences and implemented in a number of studies of personality-its initiative and responsibility, semantic differential of claims, self-regulation and satisfaction, personal organization of time, types of social thinking, some of which were mentioned above.

This method was developed to solve an acute issue related to the problem of personality in the context of the subject paradigm of Rubinstein. As noted, Rubinstein's appeal to this proper philosophical concept, which denotes activity, self-determination, self-activity, self-determination and self-development of a person and its application as a methodological one in psychology, served to solve at least three problems. The first is to overcome the understanding of the individual only as an object of research, since the objective method in Russian psychology assumed the study of only the object manifestations of the individual (in activity), and not itself. The second was to overcome the gradual transformation of activity into a self-fulfilling subject and, by introducing the category of subject, to reveal the space of not only active, but also contemplative (ethical) and life relations of a person. Psychology, as Rubinstein once put it, felt cold in one narrow activity "coat". The task of revealing the richness and diversity of human relations with the world opened the way to the concreteness of psychological research and understanding the real complexity and inconsistency of individual human existence [2, 3]. Finally, the third task, which was solved by the entire Rubinstein school, was to overcome the separation of the external and internal, i.e., the dissection of the individual into intra - and interindividual aspects and mechanisms that had developed on the basis of the epistemological paradigm in philosophy and the paradigm of interiorization in psychology, if we formulate the problem in modern terms.

We were aware of the impossibility of identifying the philosophical understanding of the subject and the actual scientific and psychological one. Therefore, initially, as noted above, the concept of personality as a subject of life was specified, it, in turn, was differentiated from the concept of personality as a subject of activity, i.e., the requirement was introduced to clarify the criteria for identifying the qualitative certainty of a particular subject. Since the time of Ananyev, it has become obvious that the subject of activity is different from the subject of knowledge and the subject of communication, although discussions on this issue continued. In the works of Brushlinsky, a philosophical and methodological interpretation of the Rubinstein category of the subject is undertaken. He believes that the individual is the subject. This raises approximately the same methodological problem as with the concept of personality. For example, the Finnish psychologist K. Vekrut connects the appearance of the quality of the subject with the moment of mastering the child's behavior, with a certain degree of independence. But the fact that a child is independent does not mean that turning into an adult, he becomes socially independent; the question arises, to what extent does it also master social relations? In other words, it is possible to identify a number of such stages of becoming a subject through the characterization of the relationships that a person masters. But this leads to the question to what extent and what kind of person is the subject, a question that limits the universality of this concept. And what about the other meaning of the subject category, which implies the achievement of the highest level of development and improvement?

In our opinion, both the optimistic paradigm that asserts the creative essence of the individual, its freedom and independence as a subject, and the non-subjective paradigm that considers the individual as a micro-society, thus identical and completely similar to it, are illegitimate.

By giving the most General theoretical definition of the individual as a subject in psychology, we connect it with the existence of a contradiction between the individual, his motives, abilities, needs and the requirements that society imposes on him - two realities that never correspond to each other. The quality and measure of becoming a person as a subject are related to the ability and the way it resolves this contradiction. The personality as a subject of life - in all its personal, social, active, communicative, and cognitive manifestations resolves this contradiction, seeking to find a certain consensus that is more optimal for its own "I", or sacrificing freedom, individuality, activity in favor of adaptability, or choosing independence and sacrificing social approval, benefits, etc. Character, the acuteness of this contradiction and its solution depends, of course, and how in a given society recognized the rights of the individual and how the individual is genetically or in vivo, with a "reflex of freedom", personality, talent, etc. The inability or failure of the individual to resolve this contradiction leads to its degradation, destruction, deformation, accentuation, i.e. to a change in the optimal proportions in the intrapersonal organization due to the inadequacy of the way of life, its "inauthenticity". It is proposed not to consider these types as individuals, but we believe that they, while remaining individuals, cease to be subjects and become performers, "derivatives" of their way of life.

When a person optimally solves this contradiction, it develops in the sense of its perfection, maturity, i.e. our understanding includes this criterion for determining the subject. However, since the contradictions are both global and concrete, the individual as a subject resolves the constantly arising contradictions generated by the course of life and its circumstances. The scale of contradictions and the constructiveness of their solutions determine the level reached by the individual as a subject. The personality does not go along with life, but ascends along the ascending line, as Rubinstein wrote. It is assumed that both individual and human criteria, i.e. the principles of humanity and spirituality, are laid down in the characteristics of levels.

Personality becomes a subject when it acts as a center of self-organization and self-regulation, which allows it to relate to reality in a holistic, rather than partial way. In this we see the development at the present stage of the idea of the integrative essence of the individual. Above, we have given Rubinstein's definition of personality as a Trinity of what a person wants, what a person can, and what he himself is, i.e., a Trinity of needs, motives, desires, on the one hand, abilities, opportunities, on the other, and character, on the third. To paraphrase this definition today, we would say that a person is a subject who develops a way to connect his desires (motives, etc.) with abilities in accordance with his character in the process of their implementation in life, with his goals and circumstances of life. The subject is a "bridge" between the personal organization (Ananiev called it the "system"), which, however, are not just "fit" (for Ananyev) in the system of society and fit into it by the subject. If a person loses this subjective position, if it is included in society, then it ceases to be a subject of life. Defenses, frustrations, stresses, complexes, sick self-esteem-a phenomenology of non-optimal ways for the individual to solve this "problem".

The main thing for understanding the individual as a subject is a paradoxical revolution in the very formulation of the problem of personality. It is not a "basket", a set of needs, values, abilities, character, will, temperament, which psychologists have tried to structure in one way or another, each in his own way, but it is a subject to the extent that it uses its intelligence, its abilities, subordinates its lower needs to higher ones, builds its life in accordance with its values and principles.

Personality is not an integral a priori, it constantly integrates its "components" more or less optimally in terms of subjective (ease, satisfaction, joy) and objective (success, social acceptability, approval, etc.) criteria. These "tasks" of self-regulation and integration are solved by some in a conscious, arbitrary, volitional way by others-in an unconscious way that is more constructive or leads to disintegration.

However, summarizing the word usage of the concept "subject" in modern psychology, we can state, on the one hand, its spread, on the other - the ambiguity that turns it into a meaningless epithet, which means that it is impossible to use it as a definition, the need for problematic disclosure of its meaning and criteria.

We have come to understand that consciousness, which has many theoretical definitions given by Rubinstein and other psychologists (including through the meanings and meanings in the school of Leontiev and his successors, including as "live action" - Zinchenko), can be revealed only through the definition of personality as a subject. Consciousness performs the function of coordinating the entire complex system of personal organization with the world in all its variety of temporal-spatial, abstract-concrete, sensory-ideal, value, object, event, and other forms. The goal, which was defined as the present reality of consciousness and activity, is the moment when the subject searches for a coordinate, a vector in which these systems are to be coordinated. At the same time, the goal is a way to resolve the contradiction between the" logic "of the individual and the" logic " of the object, situation, and reality in the broad sense of the word.

But the main thing in the formulation of the problem of consciousness as a personal ability is that consciousness is always historical in the sense of attachment to the life history of a given person in a given society, it is the "organ" of its functioning in certain conditions, although it has the ability to abstractions built on the basis of human experience and culture, to ethno-cultural and other generalizations. That is why we have defined the social thinking of a person as a functional mechanism of its consciousness and, having formulated a theoretical model based on taking into account its characteristics in world psychology (S. Moscovici, R. Harre, Dilthey, Riker, etc.), we have begun to study the real thinking of real individuals in our society. We used a combination of the cross-cultural method and the progressive typology method [5, 7, 10].

Without stating the entire array of data obtained [10], the following fact can be cited as unexpected in the context of the subject's problem under discussion. It turned out that the number of personality characteristics, its implicit concept, which traditionally includes the usual set of qualities "smart", "kind", "persistent", etc.in the Russian mentality and individual consciousness (and not only in the psychological science itself), there are subject-object characteristics. In the beginning, Bodalev's group, and later Harash, established the peculiarity of interpersonal perception - the perception of the other as a subject or object. Later we proved that at the level of the way of thinking (and not just perception), the other acts as a subject or object [7]. It turned out that this categorization of the other as a subject or object is characteristic not only of scientific psychological generalizations, but also of ordinary Russian consciousness in relation to... to your own personality, i.e. its self-awareness. It is necessary to prove by cross-cultural comparison how much this is peculiar only to the consciousness of the Russian personality. But we assume that this is a manifestation of totalitarianism, which is really its unique product: a form of connection between the individual and society as direct, not institutionally mediated, as in other societies. A certain type of consciousness that represents itself or society as a subject or object (four combinations that gave four types) has its own specific architectonics or "mechanics" of functioning in the form of a symptom complex of values, a way of thinking, and ... optimism-pessimism. The latter characteristic needs a more specific definition, revealing the psychological mechanisms of increasing or decreasing the activity of the individual. But in its most fundamental expression, it is an integral part of the life perspective (or lack of it) of the individual and a motivator of activity related to the consciousness of the individual.

These data, among other things, show that in the minds of at least some types of personality, there are still heavy traces of totalitarianism, which destroyed the very core of the personality - its "I", its self - esteem.

It is no accident that the problem of "I", "I concept" has turned out to be a white spot in Russian psychological science, while it is the one that is most intensively developed all over the world.

Summing up the discussion about the main concepts related to personality psychology, from the point of view of today, we must say that the understanding of terms has not yet reached unity, and we can only state their main meanings. The concept of "individual" is used in Russian psychology in two main meanings (which are discussed in the mentioned article by Davydov [72]). The first most accepted meaning connects this concept with the natural level of organization of the individual. The second, which is used less frequently (primarily by psychologists of methodological Marxist orientation), is the understanding of the individual as a social being (in a certain sense, the opposite of the first). Sometimes, much less often, the concept of an individual is used to refer to an individual (according to the triad-General, special, individual) and in this usage it is synonymous with the concept of "individual".

The concept of individuality, as already noted, is also used in two main meanings: as a rule, to denote a person's characteristics, the differences between this person and others, and less often, to denote the highest level of personal development in the sense of becoming a bright personality (according to Rubinstein and Ananyev). Some ambiguity arises when the concept of individuality is used in the meaning of differential psychology and even psychophysiology and actually characterizes the individual level of personality, claiming to reveal its very essence.

The greatest conceptual ambiguity, reaching the point of blurring the meaning of this concept, is observed in relation to the concept of "subject". Above, the concept of the subject was revealed in the works of the classics of Russian psychology. The concept of the subject developed by Brushlinsky is a philosophical and psychological interpretation and development of Rubinstein's category of the subject. Another aspect of this category was, as noted, proposed by Lomov to reveal the specifics of communication relations and designated through the subject-subject pair (to differentiate from the subject-object relations, through which the characteristic of activity is given). Abulkhanova-Slavske proposed to distinguish between General, coming from philosophy, understanding of the subject, associated with his activity, initiative, self-development, self-determination and special and differential when the concept of the subject used for the disclosure of qualitative definiteness of the relations that include the subject (the specifics of the moral subject, the subject of mental activity, and then the subject of the communication, activity, cognition, etc.). In fact, it has come to be used to denote the quality in which a person is a subject, as opposed to when it is not. The same applies to a group that may or may not become a collective entity. Not all individuals are subjects of activity, self-improvement and self-development. In other words, it has come to be used to refer to a problem that requires research. Under all conditions, it is no longer possible to use a word in which "subject" refers to the person in question, refers to the subject or subject of the Federation. Our content analysis of the use of this word in the book by A. N. Leontiev [3, p.71] showed that the author's ambiguity of its meanings does not allow us to say that it is a proper concept for this author.

In summary, we can say that in modern psychology, the concept of the subject is constructive in two main meanings-to denote the optimal levels, stages of improvement in the development of the individual, first, and, secondly, to denote its specific quality, in which it appears in each special system of connections and relationships (the quality of the subject of activity, the quality of the subject of communication, etc.), for which a special disclosure of this quality becomes necessary. However, this category, which is particularly pronounced at the present stage, is not an epithet, but a problem that requires research and proof.

Literature

• Abulkhanova K. A. On the subject of mental activity. M. 1973.
• Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K. A. Dialectics of human life, Moscow, 1977.
• Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K. A. Activity and psychology of personality. M. 1980.
• Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K. A., Brushlinsky A.V. Philosophical and psychological concept of S. L. Rubinstein. M. 1989.
• Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K. A. Activity and consciousness of the individual as a subject of activity // Psychology of personality in a socialist society. Part 1. Activity and personal development. M. 1989.
• Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K. A. Personal regulation of time // Psychology of personality in a socialist society. Part P. Personality and its life path. M. 1990.
• Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K. A. Personal types of thinking / / Cognitive psychology. M. 1986.
• Abulkhanova-Slavskaya K. A. The principle of the subject of the philosophical and psychological concept of S. L. Rubinstein / / Sergey Leonidovich Rubinstein. Essays, memoirs, materials. M. 1989.