Re: [xmca] varying definitions of perezhivanie

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

Michael, Haydi, Christine and others, thank you for drawing my attention 
to Fyodor Vasilyuk. Just read his book and loved it. It's one of those 
books that even though you can follow it as you read, it is not easy to 
recall afterwards. Anyway, here is my synopsis.

*The Psychology of Experiencing*. The Resolution of Life’s Critical 
Situations. by Fyodor Vasiluk Progress Publishers 1984.

This is a book about living through critical situations in life. 
“Experiencing” is a translation of “/perezhivanie/” and Vasilyuk uses it 
to mean “any process which brings about resolution of a critical 
life-situation, irrespective of how that process is directly felt by the 
individual.” Vasilyuk is an Activity Theorist, and sees experiencing as 
an activity, not just something to which happens to a person, but that 
hitherto Activity Theory had no term for it. So he has appropriated 
Vygotsky’s use of the term as a unit for the development of character. 
But I notice that for Vasilyuk, /perezhivanie /is the whole “working 
through” of the crisis situation, which is elsewhere called “catharsis,” 
whereas what others call the /perezhivanie /he calls the 
crisis-situation. The situation is of course equally subjective and 
objective, arising in the world, as it is experienced by the subject 
according to the subject’s commitments in the world as well as 
uncontrolled events arising from the objective world. Vasilyuk is a 
superb dialectician. Experiencing is the process in which character is 
formed, but also, it is the process of character itself: both process 
and product.

The main part of the book hinges on the idea that the inner world of the 
subject, the active side which cognizes, feels, perceives and acts may 
be either /simple/ or /complex/; the outer world of the subject, the 
subject’s life-world is either /easy/ or /difficult/. It is not so much 
that there are two kinds of inner and outer world, but that any specific 
crisis is derived from one of the four possible conjunctions: 
simple-easy, complex-easy, simple-difficult or complex-difficult. Each 
possible conjunction also contains the others, but one conjunction is 
dominant in the specific case.

Vasilyuk calls an activity a “life relation” but so far as I can see the 
word “project” perfectly describes what he has in mind. A simple inner 
world means that the crisis arises from the pursuit of just one activity 
and has no implication for any other project. A complex inner world 
means that the subject is motivated by multiple projects so that changes 
in the progress of one project has implications for other projects (eg 
they may be conflicting, or dependent on one another) and resolving a 
crisis becomes something complex in that sense. An easy outer world 
means that the crisis arises from inner causes, not existential threats 
to the project or blockages having their origin independently of the 
subject. A difficult outer world means that a project in which the 
subject is committed faces a blockage or disaster.

Vasilyuk goes through all the possible combinations of strategies that 
subjects resort to to resolve a crisis arising in each of these four 
worlds, and there are all sorts of sub-types, etc. These categories are 
ahistorical so Vasilyuk is able to explore the possibilities by logical 
means rather than abstracting them from empirical data. Of course the 
circumstances which give rise to crises and the strategies available to 
subjects are culturally and historically determined. But analysis of a 
crisis and therapeutical assistance depends first of all in diagnosing 
the kind of crisis the subject is undergoing. So the elaboration of the 
theory is very logical, but one gets the feeling that Vasilyuk has had 
the benefit of the experience of offering assistance to thousands of 
people going through severe crises and that his theory is robust as a 
diagnostic tool.

The four kinds of crisis are (simple-easy) stress, (simple-difficult) 
frustration, (complex-easy) conflict and (complex-difficult) crisis. He 
says that /stress /is a “hedonistic” crisis – the subject is concerned 
only with the here and now and getting more; /frustration /is a 
“realistic” crisis – the subject has to accept the unattainability of 
the object and determine what it is they /really/ need, not just the 
specific thing which has the meaning for them of their object; /conflict 
/is a "crisis of values" – the subject is obliged to revisit the bases 
for their past actions and question their values which have led them 
into a tragic situation; crisis as such is a creative crisis, which 
obliges the subject to transform the meaning of the absent object so as 
to make the psychologically impossible situation possible; this means a 
life-crisis resolved by creating a new life-world, a new self. This is 
all very complex and I can’t do it justice. It will take a lot of study. 
I like the way he deals with the concept of "values" as deep structures, 
underlying commitments which can be brought to light only by a subject's 
/perezihivanie/.

The section on psychotherapy relied on a different categorisation of 
four “levels of awareness.” These are the Unconscious, Experiencing 
(here in the ordinary meaning of the word, more like Undergoing), 
Reflection, and Apprehension. This structure of consciousness or 
awareness is defined by the activity of the Observer and the Observed (a 
bit like Mead's I and Me). Crises may be felt in one (mainly at the 
given moment) “level” and Vasilyuk says that a different therapeutic 
strategy is required in each case. In the case of the Unconscious, it is 
a /monologue by the therapist /who tells the patient what the break in 
consciousness reveals; in the case of Undergoing it is a /monologue by 
the patient /who gives voice to their experience so as to become aware 
of it, with the empathy of the therapist, can move it into Reflection; 
in Apprehension therapy requires a /dialogue /between the therapist and 
the patience to bring out the nature of the crisis; in Reflection the 
therapy is an /internal dialogue/ of the patient themself through which 
the crisis can be transformed and resolved successfully.

Andy

Michael Levykh wrote:
> I hope the following paragraph from my 2008 PhD Theses might shed a bit more
> light on your discussion: 
>
>
> Vasilyuk (1984) writes in his annotation to Psikhologia Perezhivaniya
> (Psychology of Perezhivaniye), that in order to manage (perezhits)
> "situations of stress, frustration, inner conflict, and life crisis, quite
> often a painful inner work has to be done in re-establishing inner
> equilibrium and reconstructing a new meaningful life" (para. 1, my
> translation). For him, even a painful experience in the past can be
> recreated as a positive, pleasurable, meaningful future-oriented experience
> of personality. Hence, perezhivaniye is a future-oriented, conscious, and
> individual emotional experience of past events achieved in the
> "here-and-now" through reflection on the individual's struggle within
> himself/herself (e.g., as if struggling between the dual consciousness of
> self and the character he/she portrays) and with the social environment
> (e.g., his/her audience). Although perezhivaniye connotes mostly negative
> (painful) experience of the past, its future-orientedness provides
> possibilities for positive outcomes. Such positive possibilities are also
> reflected in Vygotsky's optimistic views on cultural development in general.
>
>  Michael Levykh
>   


__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca