“body” and “corporality” in cultural studies. Beyond physical capabilities Attitudes towards physicality at different times

Ecology of knowledge: In this short article I will try to present four basic concepts of corporeality. They describe how a person, society and culture perceive the body. These concepts are simultaneously present today in individual representation

I was given a body - what should I do with it?

So one and so mine? ©Osip Mandelstam

In this short article I will try to present four basic concepts of corporeality. They describe how a person, society and culture perceive the body. These concepts today are simultaneously present in individual perceptions, in social practices, and in culture-forming forms of politics. They define, for example, areas such as healthcare and fashion, they influence both psychological well-being and the arts equally.

History knows periods when the topic of the body attracted more attention, as well as eras when it faded into the shadows. It can be said that a significant part of human history unfolds in the confrontation and intricacy of these two trends.

My focus will be on the contemporary: how these different paradigms live and co-exist today, shaping industries, public policy, art and worldviews. These paradigms can be distinguished by their answers to two key questions: “is the body an object or a subject?” and “what is the relationship between body and mind (soul)?”

The body as a properly functioning mechanism (the body as a detached object)

This approach is perhaps the most common today. He has a serious and objective background. It goes back to the first anatomists who studied dead, motionless bodies and tried to comprehend the internal structure of man. This approach is supported by the idea of ​​the body as a mechanism, which is often associated with the Cartesian dualism of body and soul. Industrial production and war in the twentieth century also added weight to this paradigm. Man as “cannon fodder”, man as part of an assembly line of production, as well as the rapid development of medicine and the growth of the fashion and sports industries — all this only contributes to the spread of an object-based view of the body in the twentieth century.

Obviously, a dance teacher, doctor, or fitness trainer would rather think in terms of the body as a separate entity that must function “correctly.” This picture of the world is necessary in professions in which the correct and incorrect way of working the body, effective and ineffective, is normatively established.

The object in question may be more or less complex in structure, but it is still, first and foremost, an object. Two consequences follow from this.

First, the body easily becomes an object of control and manipulation. This is also expressed in delegating care and responsibility for my body to any kind of expert (which, in general, is normal when it comes to complex medical problems, professional use of the body in sports, dancing or hardware cosmetology, but is not vital when it comes to about beauty, food or health in the broad sense of the word). This also manifests itself in the appropriation of cultural and social norms regarding beauty and health standards. This also equally applies to sensitivity in matters of bodily safety and comfort — in the city, in the workplace, in the information space, etc. It is curious (and sad) that, for example, discussion of the topic of violence, including violence against women, always contains this objective flavor. The same applies to the concept of “victim’s guilt,” which we can see both in corporate policies (“We will create constant stress for you, and you have to spend money to maintain your health”) and in the condemnation of those who do not fit into “ standards of beauty and health” (“You need to eat less!”).

The second consequence is the fundamental separation of body and mind (or soul). Rooted in religious traditions in which the body was seen as dangerous, unknown and uncontrollable, this division (dichotomy or dissociation) persists to this day. In fact, the physical is regularly relegated to the margins of attention, consciousness and, to a certain extent, culture. The body is something removed from me. There is “I” and there is “my body”. This tradition of “I am - this is not my body” is actively broadcast and reproduced from generation to generation. And due to the fact that social and
Technological changes in lifestyle over the last 100 years have only exacerbated this dissociation; this way of thinking about the body continues to dominate the overall picture of physicality. And, following it, we increasingly put our body in a subordinate position: the object is obliged to obey me. And if he, such and such, does not do this, then he is bad and will be punished, for example, deprived of pleasure. Or we begin to scold ourselves for not being successful enough managers.

By the way, it is this idea (or overcoming it) that underlies a variety of weight loss systems: some starve themselves with diets and exhausting exercises, others advise to “come to an agreement with your body.” Either war or diplomacy in relations between the warring parties.

Perhaps most interestingly, this paradigm relates to the practice of bequeathing a body, or directing what to do with a body after death. In the absence of the body-aware self—the “dead soul,” the decision-making subject—the body reverts to its object nature, becoming simply a physical object to be manipulated. Within the framework of the object paradigm, we seem to reproduce this approach, while still in our right mind and solid memory during our lifetime.

Thus, if we greatly simplify this paradigm, we can reduce it to a fairly simple formulation: the body is an object, the body is not me, I can relate to my body in different ways, we can enter into different object relations; I can treat him or take care of him, train him or ignore him, fear him or be proud of him, I can delegate him to other people or institutions. This paradigm is historically the oldest; it is most strongly entrenched in mass consciousness and cultural and social practices. Each of us can discover in ourselves the dominance or individual elements of this attitude towards the body.

The body in body-oriented psychotherapy (the body as a related object)

In the twentieth century, another way of understanding the body became widespread. In an attempt to overcome the dichotomy, or separation, of mind and body, body-oriented therapy comes into the picture. Under the influence of the complexities of the early twentieth century, the revolution in the scientific paradigm and the wave of enthusiasm for Eastern teachings, the topic of the body begins to attract more and more attention.

I don't think it's too much of an exaggeration to say that in body therapy the body is seen as a reflection and even literally the embodiment of the self. The body as a place for the materialization of various spiritual metaphors (“the heart aches,” “the brain explodes,” “the legs won’t move,” etc.). The body as a reflection of processes occurring with mental energy. The body is like an imprint of actions completed and imperfect during life. The body as some object connected with the mental, through which the mental (mind or soul) can be cognized, through the influence of which the mental can be changed. That is, from the absolute independence of the mental and physical there was a transition to the coherence of these two phenomena. Let us dwell in more detail on the model of this connection.

It is generally accepted that modern body-oriented therapy began with Wilhelm Reich. He was Freud's student, his follower, and later, as often happened with Freud's students, his active critic. The main thing that Reich reproached Freud for was ignoring physicality.

It is worth making one digression here, which is important for understanding the general model of body-oriented therapy. Science and scientists' ideas about the world spread in waves. At first, the model of atoms and mechanical interactions dominated. It was replaced by a model of liquids (for example, “electric current”). Then the “field” model began to develop. In the first half of the twentieth century, physics presented science with a quantum model. And if we look at different scientific fields, we can see how these “basic models” are spread, explicitly or implicitly, across different fields of knowledge. But they do not spread instantly, but with some delay. If we talk about physics, the transition from the “fluid” model to the “field” model occurred in the second half of the nineteenth century (more precisely, starting in 1864, when James Maxwell published his first work, “The Dynamic Theory of the Electromagnetic Field,” and about It took 20 years to finalize and confirm the theory). Freud's first work, The Interpretation of Dreams, was published in 1900. And the “field” model appeared in psychology only in the 40s (Kurt Lewin’s field theory).

Therefore, it is no coincidence that Freud, and after him Reich and already his followers, speaking about psychic energy and its flow, imagined psychic energy as a kind of liquid. To understand the ideas of Reich and his follower Alexander Lowen, it is important to keep this idea in mind.

So, Wilhelm Reich imagined the body as a place of life and the embodiment of psychic energy. If energy flows freely, then the person is mentally healthy. If energy accumulates somewhere, stagnates, and does not pass through, then it means that not everything is in order with the free circulation of psychic energy.

You may have heard the expressions “muscle armor” or “muscle clamp.” It was Reich who introduced them into circulation. These are places of tense muscles that do not allow psychic (vital) energy to flow freely. Accordingly, if you “release” muscle tension and rid a person of the “shell”, then life will improve.

From the point of view of the logic of science, it is not surprising that Reich eventually began to look for the very vital energy that fills the human body. He called it "orgone". This energy, according to Reich, underlies the Freudian concept of libido, being a biological force. He created devices that accumulated it, and tried to treat various diseases with their help.

Reich's student Alexander Lowen was more fortunate than his teacher (at least he lived safely to a ripe old age, and did not die in prison of a heart attack at age 60, like Reich). Lowen's main ideas are a natural development of Reich's key ideas. Based on his idea that mental conflict is expressed in the form of bodily tension, Lowen created his own system of working with the body.

According to Lowen, the psyche influences the body through control. A person suppresses the urge to scream by clenching his jaw, squeezing his throat, holding his breath and tensing his stomach. A person can suppress the desire to attack with fists to express his anger by tensing the muscles of the shoulder girdle. At first, this manifestation is conscious, it saves a person from the development of conflict and pain. However, conscious and voluntary contraction of muscles requires energy and therefore cannot be maintained indefinitely. But if the suppression of a feeling must be constantly maintained due to the fact that its expression is not accepted by the outside world, the psyche gives up its control over the prohibited action and takes energy from the impulse. The suppression of the impulse then becomes unconscious and the muscle or muscles remain contracted or tense because they lack the energy to stretch and relax. Accordingly, from Lowen’s point of view, it is necessary to add the force of the “energy flow” so that the muscles can relax, as if “washing away” the congestion with the force of the flow. Therefore, the Lowen method involves maximizing tension in blocked areas.

In addition to various techniques for working with tension frozen in the body, Lowen reinforced one very important idea in body therapy: unexpressed emotions literally freeze in the body. General vital energy (Lowen, in order not to repeat the teacher’s mistakes, called it simply “bioenergy”) provides both the mental life of the individual and his bodily existence. The energy taken to hold emotions in the body seems to be “subtracted” from the total amount of human energy, overall vitality.

And in this sense, indeed, looking at the body, analyzing the degree of tension (tightness) of certain parts, paying attention to freedom and, as Lowen wrote, the “natural grace” of movements (more precisely, its absence), we can talk about this or that the type of person’s character, the characteristics of his behavior, etc.

It is also important to mention here that both Reich and Lowen, based on the analysis of muscle tension, developed their own descriptions of characters, unique typologies. Based on which parts of the body accumulate more energy and where there is not enough of it, based on where the muscle blocks are located, it is quite possible to “diagnose” a personality type. This is a normal “medical” approach to the topic.

There are many different ideas and methods of working in body therapy. I would like to dwell on one more thing, illustrating the understanding of the body as a reflection and embodiment of the inner world - body dynamics.

Bodynamics is a relatively new direction in body therapy (its author is Lisbeth Marcher), which began to develop about 40 years ago. Bodynamics is based on slightly different ideas about the relationship between the “soul” and the body, although it also talks about “character types” and childhood traumas. This approach no longer considers energy, but focuses on clearer physiological indicators. The point is that during the development of a child, in response to how the environment reacts to his attempt to satisfy his basic needs, not only hypertension arises in the muscles, but also a lack of tension and activity - hypotonus. And the combination of hyper- and hypotonicity of muscles, unique for each person, creates, on the one hand, the individuality of character, and on the other hand, the bodily image that we see. By the way, it is also interesting that there is a connection between how in the course of life certain childhood “traumas” are overcome and “character” changes, and how the body changes. More than once during the “training diagnostics” I heard the phrase: “Oh, here are obvious traces of a past injury, but judging by the body, it seems that you have successfully dealt with it.”

Despite the fact that methodologically (and ideologically) bodynamics differs significantly from the “energetic” approach of Reich and Lowen, they are united by the idea of ​​​​the relationship between the “soul” (psyche, mind, emotions, etc.) and the body. The body is a reaction to a person’s mental experience, its consequences and results. Therefore, through the body we can see personal history — and through the body we can change personal history by releasing emotions trapped in the body, reducing tension or retraining muscles. In a sense, in body-oriented therapy, the body remains an object directly related to the “I”, but still separated from it.

Directions also based on the direct connection between the “I” and the body: psychosomatics (unexpressed emotions are expressed physically in illness), the Alexander method (working with posture), the Rosen method (muscle relaxation through touch), Rolfing (structural integration through working with fascia) , some massage practices used in therapeutic work (palsing, myofascial release, etc.), relaxation techniques and even the notorious “Reiki” method.

This paradigm — “bodily problems are a consequence of mental problems” — is very common today. The most vividly simple train of thought “if in the body..., then (this is because) in the soul/in life...” is expressed in “everyday psychosomatics”, a striking example of which can be considered, for example, the books of Louise Hay and Liz Burbo.

The paradigm of the body as an object associated with the psyche can thus be formulated as follows: there is a certain (described differently in each specific model) connection between the body and emotions, character, way of life; body is an object associated with other life manifestations of a person; By influencing the body taking into account the type of connection, we can change some aspects of life. This view has managed to gain some popularity, which can be considered, if not widespread, then at least popular, thanks to the success of books in the “self-help” genre and, to some extent, due to the development of psychosomatics as a branch of medicine.

Body in art therapy (body as a mediator, body as a channel of communication)

If for body therapy the metaphor “body is a message” may be appropriate, then for art therapy, in my opinion, the metaphor “body as a messenger” (“body as a messenger, intermediary”) is quite suitable. Indeed, art therapy (or, as it is now more correctly called this type of activity, “creative expression therapy”) often uses the body as an intermediary between internal processes (or, more precisely, unconscious processes, the unconscious) and those who can perceive. This could be a spectator, a witness, or the person himself as an observer. Art in any of its manifestations seems to bring to the surface, make visible, observable and tangible some inner content. And in this sense, any “products” obtained during the artistic process can provide rich ground for thought, so to speak, they supply “material for work” no worse than the classical method of free association for psychoanalysis.

“Release your hand and draw”, “let go your body and move”, “let go your hand and write”, “let go your body and let it act or speak”… - all of these sentences used in the art therapy process use the body as a guide. The body becomes a means of expression.

But the point is not only that the body during the process can provide a fair amount of material for analysis, interpretation and comprehension. And it is not only the catharsis and affect possible in the process of bodily self-expression that have healing potential. The most curious thing that can happen in such a process is a change, transformation of the original impulse and experience. To put it very roughly: from negative to positive. To be more precise, this could be a transition from despair to joy, a way out of a dead end to liberation, a transition from powerlessness to confident activity, etc. If we use the “energy model” to explain such phenomena, then we can perhaps talk about that through the movement of the body (no matter in dance, drawing, vocalization or stage embodiment) experience, psychic energy, previously locked somewhere, receives not only a channel for expression, manifestation, breakthrough into affect, but also a form in which it can be transformed, a process by which it can change.

This phenomenon allows art therapy to work with “closed requests” (when the client does not want to report a problem or cannot formulate it). I don’t know what the problem is or I don’t want to talk about it, but by releasing my body into action (dancing, drawing, writing, performing, making sound), I allow “my healthy forces”, my active imagination, to find a solution to the problem themselves. It’s as if through activity, bodily activity, developing and transforming it, I find the “right” way that heals the body.

On the one hand, in this regard, art therapy has many similarities, for example, with modern culture, in which the body, bodily actions themselves are a manifesto. On the other hand, it is deeply rooted in ritual practices. Transformative ritual movements (for example, dervish dances), modern movement practices (for example, “5 rhythms” by Gabriella Roth) contain this mediating and transformative potential. Gabriella Roth's first book is even called Sweat Your Prayers.

In fact, the choice of art therapy as an example of the idea of ​​“the body as a mediator” is rather arbitrary. Many practices (therapeutic, artistic, and developmental) use this idea of ​​the body. The same psychosomatics that I mentioned in the previous part is inclined, among other things, to consider a bodily symptom as a sign. That is, the point may be not only that energy, not finding a “healthy” expression, forms reactions of the body that are dangerous to health, but also that through a bodily symptom the unconscious can “speak” to the person himself or to others, communicating some important information that cannot be conveyed in any other way.

“Conversation with the body”, “expression through movement” is used in many areas of psychotherapy: in psychosynthesis by Roberto Assagioli, in Gestalt therapy, in procedural transpersonal approaches. The transformative potential of unconscious movement is also used in Peter Lewin's somatic trauma therapy and some techniques in body-oriented therapy. And also in dance and movement therapy and, oddly enough, in the behavioral approach. In a sense, the method of systematic desensitization used in working with phobias involves permanent and, to some extent, creative changes in the body's response to a threatening stimulus.

In addition, using movement as a metaphor for some difficulty in life, you can, by changing the movement or finding a more suitable one, suddenly easily solve the problem itself (I have observed this effect in my work more than once). There is something magical about this: the problem seems to be solved by itself.

In addition to psychotherapy, one can find the embodiment of the “body as mediator” paradigm in contemporary performance art. Although the history of artistic performances goes back about 100 years (the first public performances of artists of the twentieth century, where the element of processuality inherent in visual plastic art began to actively manifest itself, date back to the era of the historical avant-garde of the beginning of the century, or more precisely to the experiences of futurism and dada) , only starting from the 1960s–70s, it was the physical that became an important subject of study by the artist and provoking the public. The artist explores his own physicality and invites the viewer to witness this exploration and join in through the exploration of his own bodily response. In this process, the body acquires its own voice, not just describing what is happening at this moment with the soul, but materializing this message. In a performance, the content is not told - it is self-presented. A certain message (text or action) becomes not just a statement about something, but a demonstration of what this message says. The performances of Marina Abramovich, Yves Klein, Hermann Nitsch, Ulay are a vivid embodiment of this idea.

Another very striking example of the paradigm is Butoh dance, modern Japanese plastic art. If anyone wanted to see what the naked soul looks like in a variety of experiences, he would do well to look at butoh. Although butoh is a dance with all the attributes inherent in dance (technique, choreography, traditions), it is in a sense “anti-aesthetic”; it is built on the bodily experience of internal states that are initially ambiguous and contradictory. One of the fruitful ideas contained in butoh was the redefinition of dance from a simple art of movement to the manifestation of a sense of the essence of one’s own body.

The idea of ​​the body as a conductor, as a channel or intermediary more actively connects the physical and mental (soul or mind), strengthens this connection, creates various forms for it and brings it to the forefront. The body in this paradigm acquires even greater weight and significance. The very idea that “the body can speak” (akin to the title of Alexander Girshon’s book “Stories Told by the Body”) emphasizes the possibility of the subjectivity of the body and the significance of this aspect of the body. This point of view is close to people who are not alien to art and psychology, but (at least in terms of aesthetics) encounters strong resistance and misunderstanding of “ordinary people.”

Integral view of the body (body as a conscious subject)

Today there is another paradigm of physicality, which is gaining increasing momentum and distribution. It is worth saying that in trying to describe it, I am entering the slippery path of unclear definitions and a reality that is still emerging. In a sense, trying to capture the essence of this paradigm in words is somewhat similar to trying to capture this sensation of a “conscious body” — easier to feel than to express in words.

It is perhaps important to clarify that in this case the use of the word “integral” is not directly related to the ideas of Ken Wilber and his integral concept of everything.

Ideas about the body and corporeality naturally changed along with the change of leading paradigms in culture. An essentially mechanistic concept of medicine and sports, trying to clarify, overcome this mechanism, a kind of “early modern” concept of Reich and Lowen, a typical “modern” concept of art therapy... In this logic
“integrality” should probably be attributed to “postmodernism”, especially since the idea of ​​“body”, “corporality” is one of the key concepts of postmodernism. The metaphor of the body is actively used in relation to any kind of “text” (Roland Barthes), society (Gilles Deleuze). “Corporality” becomes a designation of vitality, vitality, primordiality and, at the same time, structure.

When ideas are scattered in the air, when they are purposefully or spontaneously implemented in everyday practices in the form of trends, they cannot but influence the development of certain areas of activity and ideas.

The ideas of an integral view of the body, it seems to me, are largely the result of everything that has happened over the last 30–40 years. This is the notorious “sexual revolution”, and experiments with drugs, trying not only to “expand consciousness”, but also to overcome the limitations of the experience of everyday bodily sensations. It is no coincidence that almost all bodily practices that initially arose within specific functional areas — training dancers, body development, rehabilitation, etc. — now emphasize that their purpose and benefits are not so much applied and practical as integral (“to treat not only the body, but and soul”; developing “a deeper level of understanding of the full use of the body as a whole”). Even though they are not formally psychotherapy, they all use bodily awareness as a way to integrate and develop experience, as a way of living and feeling one’s own vitality.

A significant problem faced by almost all authors and practitioners discussing the integral approach to the body is the lack of a descriptive language. The reality of integral bodily practices is addressed not only and not so much to the functional benefits of these practices for physical health and psyche (although this benefit is obvious), but rather to rather subtle bodily sensations. On the one hand, these practices are associated with the development of the sensation of one’s body (the development of the proprioceptive sense), and on the other hand, the ongoing, procedural nature of these sensations turns out to be fundamental. It is precisely this bodily present continuous that does not yet lend itself to a clear description.

However, there are some common points that unite different approaches, methods and schools that one can try to describe.

The most important thing is the fundamental unity of the physical and mental. In the most general sense, we are talking about the original continuity, coherence of the physical (in its most diverse manifestations) and the mental (also in its most diverse manifestations). The very word “integral” emphasizes not that the body and psyche are connected in some way (and we analyze or correct this connection), but that they are one. This fine line between connection and inextricable coexistence is conveyed in practice through the sensations and experience of bodily living of the current moment in time, but is not yet captured in rational (non-poetic) language. To denote this unity, the integral approach managed to develop a general term, which, alas, cannot be adequately translated into Russian - bodymind. That's it, in one word.

Another common theme across all integral approaches is the idea of ​​body consciousness/awareness/awareness. I used different forms not only because it is quite difficult to translate the term body awareness used in the approaches into Russian. For the integral approach, the result (awareness), the process (awareness), and the aspect of intellectual activity (consciousness) are equally important. We are talking about directing attention to the sensations of the body, focusing attention on proprioception and internal sensations of the body. It is valuable in itself, not in connection with subsequent functional benefits, but as a significant component of immediate existence.

There is one interesting detail here. Active use of the term body awareness itself seems to have begun with the work of Moshe Feldenkrais. And the word “somatics” as a modern designation for an approach and a group of methods based on an integral understanding of the human body was introduced by his student Thomas Hanna. Both authors traditionally belong to the field of body-oriented therapy (at least in the Russian tradition of this direction). Although, in fact, they became one of the first authors (both texts and practical approaches) to introduce this intonation of integrity into bodily practice.

Another important aspect that is significant for all approaches and practices in the integral paradigm is the idea of ​​a person as a moving being. In the integral approach, movement is necessary for the sensation of the body, but it is also an integral property of the human body. Actually, bodymind, the relationship between the body and the psyche exists in the movement of the body and naturally manifests itself through it. If earlier greater importance was given to the functionality of movement (in the body-oriented approach) and its expressiveness (in art therapy), then in the “new” (integral) anatomy the body is not conceived without movement. Moreover, we are talking about both the movement of the body itself and the movement within the body (movement of fluids, transmission of movement through muscles and fascia, and similar phenomena).

Another interesting feature of the integral understanding of the body is the way in which different approaches discover and manifest the idea of ​​​​the unity of the bodymind. In order to overcome the dichotomy of body and psyche, one involuntarily has to change the boundaries of consideration.

This may be an appeal to evolutionary history and, accordingly, the discovery of evolutionary patterns of movement (Bartenieff Fundamentals) — the use and confirmation of the biogenetic law “ontogenesis repeats phylogeny.” This can be a movement “deeper” of the body and the study of proprioception and interoception of body systems (Body-Mind Centering). Another focus (or method) is to study the interaction between the bodymind and the environment. This is attention to spatio-temporal conditions, and to gravity, and to the geometry of space, developed in different practices; and theoretical studies of corporeality in relation to social or cultural landscapes and processes (Richard Shusterman's Somaesthetics, John Urry's tourism studies, and so on).

The main pathos of the modern integral paradigm of the body can perhaps be expressed quite simply: the body has much more significance than we are used to thinking.

The integral body approach does not (at least not yet) have an established language. In different directions, schools, and from different authors you can find the words “integral corporeality” (integral body), somatic approach, bodymind (or body-mind), embodiment. All of them are now synonymous to refer to this paradigm.

The integral approach to understanding the body is still quite young. In recent decades, it has actively developed as a practice, formed into schools and developed authoritative texts within the framework of these schools. However, to an outside observer he still seems strange, almost wild. Without a language and a “scientific” understanding of the mechanisms underlying these practices, it is quite difficult to explain what all these people are doing, making strange movements and carefully listening to something barely audible and imperceptible inside their bodies.

Fortunately, today neuroscience is coming to the aid of an integral approach to the body. While not always able to explain why and how exactly these phenomena work, scientific research (primarily using fMRI) demonstrates that “this actually happens.” The scientific works of John Kabbat-Zin (programs for working with stress, eating disorders and depression based on programs for the development of bodily awareness), Amy Cuddy’s experiments (the influence of the nature of the posture on the endocrine system), various instrumental studies of practicing Buddhist monks right in front of the venerable public - all this clearly demonstrates that the integral idea of ​​the body is not only messages from various spiritual teachers about the correct world order, but also a completely reliable fact of our existence.

The integral paradigm of physicality is natural in the changing conditions of the big world. After the mass wars of the twentieth century, the increasing relevance of environmental issues, the gradual revision of attitudes towards the themes of violence, freedom, etc., something inevitably had to begin to change in the idea of ​​the body. The integral approach increases sensitivity to weak signals from the environment and society, precisely because it sensitively listens to the sensations of the individual and collective body, catches weak signals and reactions, and is aware of them. It allows you to set a new dimension to the problems of urbanization and ecology, politics and healthcare, education and personal development. This paradigm manifests itself in completely understandable social practices: practices of legal regulation in areas related to the body (smoking, family and children, healthcare, etc.), insurance practices, logistics of traffic flows and urban navigation, food products, military invasions, organization working conditions and much, much more).

Despite the complexity of logical understanding and the relative (for European culture) novelty of this paradigm, today it is surprisingly easily integrated into social practices. This is partly due to the wave of popularity of mindfulness practices (yoga, meditation, etc.): meditation is now practiced by entire work teams, from Google to the British Parliament. Another important reason, in my opinion, is a more general paradigm shift that has emerged in the twenty-first century, which is significantly changing ideas about what is possible and acceptable in politics, economics, and social practices. The integral paradigm of corporeality turns out to be simply one of the components of this larger modern concept of man and the world.

Comparative table of approaches to physicality

I will now try to bring together the paradigms of understanding the body that were discussed above.

The very identification of these paradigms is somewhat arbitrary. It is likely that any other researcher will be able to identify not four, but some other number of basic ideas, or will use a different basis for identifying paradigms. This is a subjective perspective that helps me both as a researcher and as a practitioner.

It is important that these paradigms, as ways of thinking about one’s body and about the body in general, exist simultaneously today. By analyzing our own thoughts on this matter, we can always detect the manifestation of any of these paradigms. And they may be different depending on the context or current situation. published

a concept that serves to overcome the traditional guidelines of metaphysical thinking: subject - object, a single center of representation, implicit exaltation of epistemology. Within the framework of classical philosophy, the concept of T. was systematically supplanted due to its ethical and theoretical orientation. Classical philosophy was never able to overcome the dichotomy of subject and object, body and soul, transcendental and immanent, external and internal, etc. This dichotomy can be overcome if we turn to the unity of experience, the stabilizing structure of which is T. At the same time, T. is understood not as an object, not as a sum of organs, but as a special formation - an unconscious horizon of human experience, constantly existing before any definite thinking. Inaccessible to reflexive analysis, indecomposable according to the scheme of sequential rational action, T. turns out to be original in relation to natural and cultural objects, thanks to which they exist and the expression of which they are. For Merleau-Ponty, T. is a “phenomenal body”, “a system of possible actions”, a “potential body”, the phenomenal location of which is determined by the task and situation. For Foucault, society is a product of historically developed interdependent social and bodily practices. T. turns out to be the focus of two main forms of therapeutic politics: the anatomopolitics of the human body and the biopolitics of the population. For Deleuze and Guatgari, T. is a “body without organs” that constantly destroys the organism. For Lyotard, T. is libidinal desire, its impersonality, intentionality and determining power in relation to the figurative. In the concept of T., anonymity carries a special load. The latter means that T., as the highest synthesis and unity of experience, has its own world, understands its own world without rational mediation, without subordination to the objectifying function.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

CORPORITY

ENGLISH CORPORALITY, CORPOREALITY, BODINESS. The concept of poststructuralism and postmodernism, which has not received an unambiguous terminological fixation and is called differently by different theorists. It is a side consequence of the general sexualization of the theoretical and aesthetic consciousness of the West and serves as one of the conceptual justifications for the depersonalization of the subject.

If classical philosophy tore apart spirit and flesh, constructing in the “realm of thought” an autonomous and sovereign transcendental subject as a purely spiritual phenomenon, sharply opposed to everything corporeal, then the efforts of many influential thinkers of our time, under whose direct influence the poststructuralist-postmodernist doctrine was formed, were aimed at theoretical “fusion” of the body with the spirit, to prove the postulate about the inseparability of the sensory and intellectual principles. This task was solved by introducing a sensory element into the very act of consciousness, asserting the impossibility of “purely contemplative thinking” outside of sensuality, which is declared to be the guarantor of the connection of consciousness with the outside world.

As a result, the very idea of ​​the “inner world” of a person was rethought, since with the introduction of the concept of “corporality of consciousness,” the distinction between “internal” and “external” was removed, at least in theory. This is a fairly common fantasy theme of modern philosophical reflection, which has given rise to a whole fan of a wide variety of theoretical speculations. It is enough to recall the “phenomenological body” of M. Merleau-Ponty as a specific type of “being of the third kind”, ensuring a constant dialogue of human consciousness with the world and, thanks to this, the sensory-semantic integrity of subjectivity. Merleau-Ponty argued that the “locus of meaning” and mimetic meanings endowed with the world is the human body. For Merleau-Ponty, the source of any meaning lies in the human animate body, which spiritualizes the worlds and forms with them a “correlative unity.”

In the same row are the “social body” of J. Deleuze, the choir as an expression of the physicality of “foremother-matter” of J. Kristeva and, finally, the “body as text” of R. Barthes (“Does the text have human forms, is it a figure, an anagram of the body? Yes, but of our erotic body") (Barthes:l975, p. 72). In his last works “Sade, Fourier, Loyola” (1971), “The Pleasure of the Text” (1973), “Roland Barthes on Roland Barthes” (1975), Barthes introduces the concept of the “erotic textual body”. At the same time, Barthes openly declares his distrust of science, reproaching it for being dispassionate, and tries to avoid this with the help of an “erotic attitude” towards the text under study (Barthes: 1977, p. 164). M. Foucault also played an important role in the development of this concept.

What Barthes and Kristeva postulate as the erotic body is in fact a curious metamorphosis of the “transcendental ego” into a “transcendental erotic body,” which is just as impersonal, despite all Kristeva’s attempts to “root” it in the body of the mother or child, as Cartesian-Husserlian transcendental ego.

Examples of the sexualization of thinking can be found among a variety of modern scientists who do not think “out-of-body,” and on this basis for them a non-sexual mentality. The libidinal existence of the “social body” - that is, society, as Deleuze and Guattari understand it, with all the accompanying biological-naturalistic associations, obviously cannot be considered outside the general spirit of shockingness that permeates all the avant-garde theoretical thought of the times of the “sexual revolution”. The authors of Anti-Oedipus follow this well-trodden path. Libido for them, as for Kristeva, is a dynamic element of unconscious mental activity, manifesting itself as impulses-quanta of energy, between which there are moments of pause, a break in the outpouring of this energy. These libidinal “flows” are given the features of physiological processes - products of the vital activity of a living organism. Accordingly, the “machine-likeness” of libido is understood by them in the sense that it consists of outflow impulses, flows and their temporary cessations, that is, it represents a kind of pulsation. According to Deleuze, just as the human mouth interrupts the flow of inhaled and exhaled air and consumed milk, so do the excretory organs. The role of various “desiring machines” in relation to the flows of libidinal energy is considered similarly. From all this we can conclude that the “fundamental” type of “desiring machine,” despite all the deliberate terminological confusion, for Deleuze and Guattari is man, his natural properties, on which various kinds of formations are then layered - structures, or, in terms Deleuze-Guattari, “pseudostructures”: family, society, state.

In the same way, Kristeva strives to biologize the very process of signification, to root its origins and meanings in the body itself, the very existence of which (as well as the processes occurring in it) is conceived by analogy with the text.

The introduction of the principle of “corporality” entailed three trends. Firstly, the “dissolution” of the autonomy and sovereignty of the subject in “acts of sensibility”, i.e. in such states of consciousness that are outside the power of the volitional and rational principles. Secondly, the emphasis on the affective sides of sensuality has led to increased interest in its pathological aspect. And finally, sexuality as a visually concentrated manifestation of sensuality came to the fore among almost all theorists of poststructuralism and postmodernism and began to noticeably dominate over all its other forms. There is also no doubt that the very concept of sexualized and eroticized physicality was formed in line with Freudian and neo-Freudian ideas, developing and supplementing them in its own way.

It was Foucault, already in his early works, who set those parameters of the sexualized nature of sensuality that have become so typical of poststructuralist theorizing. His contribution to the development of the concept of corporeality lies primarily in the fact that he sought to prove the direct interdependence of social and bodily practices that, in his opinion, form historically different types of corporeality. Foucault’s role in the development of the concept of “corporality” lies in the fact that he sought to prove the interdependence of social and bodily practices that, in his opinion, form historically different types of corporeality. The main thing that he tried to substantiate in the first volume of “History of Sexuality” (1976) (Foucault: 1978a) is the secondary and historic nature of ideas about sexuality. For him, it is not a natural factor, not a “natural reality,” but a “product,” a consequence of the influence on public consciousness of a system of gradually formed discursive and social practices, which in turn were the result of the development of a system of supervision and control over the individual. According to Foucault, the emancipation of a person from despotic forms of power, the very fact of the formation of his subjectivity is a unique form of “spiritual slavery”, since a person’s “natural” sexuality was formed under the influence of the phenomenon of “disciplinary power”.

The scientist claims that people acquired sexuality as a fact of consciousness only from the end of the 18th century, and sex - starting from the 19th century; before that they only had the concept of flesh. At the same time, Foucault connects the formation of sexuality as a complex of social ideas internalized in the consciousness of the subject with the Western European practice of confession, which he understands very broadly. For him, psychoanalysis grew out of the “institutionalization” of confessional procedures characteristic of Western civilization. As Sarup writes, “By confession Foucault means all those procedures by which subjects were encouraged to generate discourses of truth capable of influencing the subjects themselves” (Sarup: 1988, p. 74).

In particular, in the Middle Ages, priests, Foucault believes, during confession were only interested in the sexual misconduct of people, since in the public consciousness they were associated exclusively with the human body. Since the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, the “discourse of sexuality” has acquired a new form: priests began to confess their parishioners not only in deeds, but also in thoughts. As a result, sexuality began to be defined in terms of not only the body, but also the mind. The emerging discourse about “sinful thoughts” helped shape both the very idea of ​​sexuality and contributed to the development of introspection - the subject’s ability to observe the contents and acts of his own consciousness. The formation of an apparatus of self-awareness and self-control of the individual contributed to an increase in the level of his subjectivity, self-actualization of the individual’s “I-concept”.

Thus, as Foucault emphasizes, although confession as a means of regulating human behavior, together with other measures of control in factories, schools and prisons, are various forms of discursive practices (these processes, in his opinion, were especially characteristic of the 18th century), served the purpose of educating obedient, manageable, “submissive and productive” bodies and minds, that is, they were an instrument of power, but at the same time they had the side effect of the “discourse of sexuality”, giving rise to subjectivity in its modern sense. This, according to Foucault, is the positive factor of power, which, although it contributed to the emergence of new types of discursive practices for its own purposes, however, thereby created a “new reality”, new objects of knowledge and “rituals” for their comprehension, “new abilities”. This positive aspect of Foucault's interpretation of the concept of power is especially noticeable in his works “Surveillance and Punishment” and “The Will to Knowledge.”

So, sexuality appears as a fact of the historical formation of man, and modern man at that, as an integral part of his thinking, as the final manifestation of the same “corporality of consciousness.” Such a historically late emergence of ideas about sexuality determined, according to Foucault, the relatively recent emergence of “modern man,” who supposedly arose at the end of the 17th century and with “changes in the basic attitudes of knowledge” that gave birth to him, capable of disappearing just as quickly: “If these attitudes disappear like this the same way they arose, if some event (the possibility of which we can only foresee, not yet knowing either its form or appearance) destroys them, as it collapsed at the end of the 18th century. the soil of classical thinking, then - we can guarantee this - a person will be erased like a face drawn on the coastal sand" (Foucault: 1967, p. 398).

The biologization of desire in all its manifestations and, as its natural continuation, erotization is an inevitable consequence of the general irrational spirit of poststructuralist thinking, which erects a kind of cult of the identity of society and the body with all the accompanying naturalistic details. Here we are dealing with a fairly persistent mythologem of modern Western thinking, which originates from the corresponding analogies of Hobbes, not to mention the ancient projections of Plato and the Stoics.

Great definition

Incomplete definition ↓

T.E. Tsvetus-Salkhova “BODY” AND “CORPORITY” IN CULTURAL STUDIES

What is “body” and what is “corporality”? Definition of the basic meanings of the concepts “body”. Dividing the body into “internal” and “external”. Definition of the concept of “corporality”. Distinction between the concepts “body” and “corporality”. Analysis of the development of philosophical ideas about human corporeality. Consideration of corporeality from different angles and from different approaches (epistemological, ontological, phenomenological, axiological, etc.) throughout the history of cultural studies.

Key words: body; physicality; phenomenon of physicality.

The established classical tradition of separating culture and physicality, separating the inner world of a person from his external declaration is outdated. Therefore, new “discoveries of the body” in various areas of empirical and theoretical knowledge pose the task of its philosophical and sociocultural understanding, bringing the theory of human corporeality into an integral system. Researchers believe that what is currently needed is not only a differentiated analysis of the body as an object and the body as a subject, but also an integrative analysis of the totality of its various states, qualities and abilities, united in the concept of corporeality. As a result, one of the main research problems is the question of the ability of modern science to reveal the essence of the phenomenon of human corporeality.

The category of corporeality began to be introduced, on the one hand, under the influence of cultural studies and semiotics, where it was discovered that in different cultures the body is understood and felt differently, on the other hand, as a result of a new understanding of the concepts of “disease”, “pain”, “organism” etc. (it turned out that these are not so much natural states of the body, but cultural and mental concepts appropriated, formed and experienced by a person). All these studies force us to separate the concepts of body and corporeality, connecting with the latter processes understood in cultural-semiotic and psychotechnical terms. Corporality is a new formation constituted by behavior, something without which this behavior could not take place, it is the implementation of a certain cultural and semiotic scheme (concepts), and finally, it is physicality, i.e. body mode.

However, in our opinion, it is necessary to separate the concepts of “body” and “corporality”, since their difference takes place in cultural studies.

What is corporeality as opposed to body? First of all, they are distinguished from each other, so to speak, by the measure of “vitality”. By “body,” as a rule, we mean, first of all, a physical object that does not have subjectivity and is devoid of spirituality. When we talk about the body, we mean either a natural scientific view (the body as a biological and physiological organism), or an aesthetic one, or, finally, a practical one (everyday understanding of the body). Psychology does not look at the body itself, but at certain changes in consciousness associated with the body, such as a violation of the schema, boundaries or sensations of the body.

The validity of the separation of these definitions is confirmed by the data of historical linguistics, derived from the experience of the linguistic traditions of the peoples of the world.

In particular, in past eras in the Russian language, in addition to the now common word “body”, which today includes different contents, there was another, now out of use, word “tel”. First, in accordance with the data of V.M. De-vishvili and P.V. Zhogova, defined lifeless matter, and the second - a living, feeling person. Similar examples are found in other linguistic traditions. So, according to T.M. Buyakas,

B.A. Mikheev and V.V. Letunovsky, in the German language there are also two words: one of them denotes the physical body that one “has” (“Körper”), the other denotes the dynamic form through which a person “shows himself” (“Leib”).

The presence in culture of the concept of “body,” writes P.D. in the New Philosophical Encyclopedia. Tishchenko, “testifies to the categorization of existence into “external” and “internal” - that which is open to view (revealed) in things and people, and the invisible - the otherworldly, the sphere of ideal entities, etc. " .

In turn, modern postmodernism (M. Foucault, J.L. Nancy, J. Derrida, etc.), as if in the logic of counterpoint, notes A.P. Ogurtsov, “having put forward a program of depersonalization of the subject, drew attention to the conjugation of sensuality and thought, to the corporeality of consciousness, which does not allow the use of the opposition “external-internal” and appeals to the affective aspects of human existence, primarily to sexuality and negative affects (sadomasochism, cruelty, etc. )". “Body-without-organs,” explains V.A. The road is not a body-object; if it exists, it is on the other side of the generally accepted idea of ​​bodily reality, outside of its own image and bodily scheme (spatio-temporal and topological coordinates), outside of anatomy and psychosomatic unity.” But is it possible to think: “corporality of consciousness” or “body-without-organs”, “outside anatomy and psychosomatic unity”?

As mentioned above, the structure of the body can be divided into internal and external components. Internal components (internal living space) are learned through introceptive sensations and feelings. External components (appearance and external living space) are not only felt, felt, but also visible. Most of the existing psychological studies are devoted specifically to the visible body and appearance as a component of the image of the “I”.

MM. Bakhtin, also, distinguishing the internal and external body, believed that “the internal body - my body as a moment of my self-consciousness - represents a conscious

the totality of internal organic sensations, needs and desires, united around the inner world.”

Thus, we come to the conclusion that physicality becomes a picture of our consciousness, an aspiration of what we are. The “corporeality of consciousness,” guiding a person’s life, can “give it the most beautiful form possible (in the eyes of others, oneself, and also future generations for whom one can serve as an example)... This is what I tried to reconstruct: education and the development of some practice of self, the purpose of which is to construct oneself as a creation of one’s own life.”

A person undergoes metamorphoses throughout his life. Entering bodily esoterically oriented practices, he is born a new birth. He develops a new physicality (the body of a musician, dancer, karateka, gymnast, etc.), a new consciousness, a new personality.

It should be noted that the concept of “corporality” currently has an extremely wide range of interpretations. However, all of them in one way or another come down to determining the relationship between the physical and mental components in a person. This important aspect of the dualism of soul and body (subject and object) was fundamental in classical philosophy in understanding the human essence, and in Western culture it still remains relevant. It is not surprising that the inertia of such opposition between soul and body, cultural and natural principles, as unique poles of opposition, turned out to be inherent in modern sciences studying the problem of man.

However, the opposition between soul and body in the modern sociocultural situation is not as categorical as it was in the past. The fact is that in the conditions of a secularized culture, the classical division of the cultural time of the soul and the physical time of the body, their substantial distinction, revealed its inconsistency. These two concepts gained equality, mutual sovereignty and found consensus in the developing universality of the body.

Modern philosophical reflection on corporeality tends to consider it as a special type of human integrity, which has a special existentiality and spatial dimensions. At the same time, corporeality is understood not as an object, not as a sum of organs, but as a special formation - an unconscious horizon of human experience, constantly existing before any definite thinking. The problematic field of modern philosophical analysis of this issue includes the study of the boundaries of corporeality and the human body, the dialectic of the external and internal levels of corporeality, freedom and determinism of human bodily organization in different types of cultures.

In the epistemological context, the introduction of the concept of “corporality” into the scientific arsenal has methodological significance. The fact is that physicality, theoretically including the two poles of the binary opposition - soul and body, forms a single space that allows us to study nature in its natural integrity.

nal, psychological and sociocultural manifestations of human essence. Thus, human “corporality” is understood as a spiritualized body, which is the result of a process of ontogenetic, personal growth, and in a broad sense, historical development. In other words, physicality is intended to express the cultural, individual psychological and semantic components of the human being.

On this occasion V.P. Zinchenko notes: “To discuss the ways of animating the body and externalizing, “densifying” the soul, the space “between” should be involved, in which there would be something that relates equally to both the soul and the body, but would not be either nor to others. Or, more precisely, it would be the flesh of both soul and body. Living movement, at a minimum, is a mediator between soul and body." This space “between” - the space of rethinking, the emergence of new meanings, the space that connects opposites - is physicality.

In the phenomenological approach, corporeality as an existential phenomenon, as the indistinguishability of the “internal” and “external” principles of a person, became the subject of mental analysis by E. Husserl, J. Bataille, A. Artaud, S. Beckett, J. Deleuze, M. Merleau-Ponty, J.-P. Sartre, M. Heidegger, M.M. Bakhtin, V.A. On the way, J.-L. Nancy and other authors. An important element of the phenomenological method is the qualitative difference between the experience of a “living body” and an “anatomical body”; the latter can only be found in a purely physical description.

But here, too, the phenomenon of the human body is interpreted in different ways. E. Husserl strengthens and absolutizes the spiritual, subjective principle, the inner sense of “I”, assigning the body the role of a passive principle. M. Merleau-Ponty, on the contrary, absolutizes the body and turns it into a universe - a “phenomenal body”, i.e. corporeality, which is the meaning-generating transcendental form of the world.

MM. Bakhtin devotes a number of his works to the phenomenology of bodily feeling and the distinction of the “external” and “internal” body. Phenomenological evidence expresses, in his opinion, the “inner” body. For J.-P. Sartre and V.A. Dear corporeality, or “flesh,” is a certain excess of the body, something into which it extends in order to become the matter of fulfilled desire. “Flesh” is actualized as a result of “touch” (J.-P. Sartre) or “look” (V. A. Podoroga). In the understanding of these authors, corporeality (“flesh”) has functional rather than anatomical characteristics. “Flesh is not a body, flesh is a “glue layer” (Sartre) between two bodies, formed as a result of an exchange of touches, as if it could incarnate one flesh into another. Flesh appears on the surface of the body, or, to be more precise, flesh can be called the state of the body when it appears on its own surface.”

For another representative of the phenomenological approach, A. Artaud, the idea of ​​reality as an inverted image of appearance, the “internal” body as a mirror image of the “external” body, is valuable. The ideal of life is the secret meeting of the “external” and “internal” bodies, the reunification of thought and feeling.

From a frozen scheme, an organic shell and a mechanism described in mathematical language, Nietzsche’s corporeality turns into a unique set of microscopic relationships of forces, energies, pulsations, where any of the smallest elements has its own, completely autonomous sphere of distribution, a specific growth prospect, an internal law, not subordinated to any externally imposed goals. The image of physicality is endowed with the characteristics of internal activity and dynamism.

The most significant advances in understanding human corporeality have been achieved within the framework of the sociocultural approach, whose representatives consider it nothing other than a product of cultural development. Within this direction, corporeality is understood as a sociocultural phenomenon, defined as “the human body transformed under the influence of social and cultural factors, possessing sociocultural meanings and meanings and performing certain sociocultural functions.”

The fact is that the inclusion of a “physical person” in the sociocultural space entails significant consequences for his body, which turns from a biological phenomenon into a sociocultural phenomenon, acquiring, in addition to naturally given attributes, properties and characteristics generated by social and cultural influences.

The human body is subject to objective intensive influences from environmental factors, lifestyle characteristics, socio-economic structure and social institutions. Thus, the image of a person is formed in the structure of everyday ideas and specialized knowledge, in other words - physicality.

THEM. Bykhovskaya identifies three hypostases of human corporeality: natural, social and cultural human bodies. By “natural body” she means a biological body that obeys the laws of existence, development and functioning of a living organism. The “social body” is the result of the interaction of the naturally given human organism (“natural body”) with the social environment. And, finally, the “cultural body” is a product of the culturally consistent formation and use of a person’s bodily principle, which is the completion of the process from “impersonal”, natural-corporeal prerequisites to the actually human, not only to the social-functional, but also to the personal existence of physicality.

Cultural-historical, informational-culturological and value approaches are also close in their qualitative characteristics in the study of human corporeality.

The construction of models of physicality within the framework of the cultural-historical approach can be traced in the works of P.D. Tishchenko, P. Freund and other researchers. Various stages of the development of human society, these authors believe, are marked by ideas, images and standards of physicality specific to them, which reflect both the culture of the era, and the value of the body itself, and its relationship with the mind. Of course, the most striking natural scientific representation of the problems of the body is physiology, but even about it

P. Freund spoke of it as “socially constructed,” arguing that the form of such construction is associated with the historically changing context of production and consumption, with relations of power and domination.

In this context, the works of A.A. are devoted to the study of the process of formation of the category of “body” and “corporality”. Tahoe-Godi, V.L. Krutkina, V.M. Rozina, A.S. Khomyakova, R.T. Ames. The works of L.P. are devoted to the issues of the relationship between the body and physicality. Kiyashchenko, L.V. Zharova, L.I. Antsiferova. The problem of corporeality is also in the area of ​​attention of researchers about the relationship between the biological and the social, which can be seen in the works of Z.K. Boydulov, E. Louis, G.M. Merabshivili, S.G. Pilecka, M. Estreya. Bodily experiences and bodily expression set the conditions for distinguishing between external and internal body language.

Thus, human corporeality is a multidimensional, creative, holistic information system. The fundamental principle of the integrity of human corporeality is the information interaction of its various levels (internal and external; biological, psychological, social and cultural), which allows maintaining correspondence between internal and external factors of information and developing the ability of dialogue between “external” and “internal” states of the body. Signs and symbols as signs of external and internal aspects in the space of physicality are combined into one linguistic structure.

Since social and cultural relations are largely projected onto the screen of the physical body,

then the human body bears the imprint of both social and cultural-historical values. In this regard, it becomes extremely relevant to study the axiological aspects of corporeality within the framework of a value-based research approach.

Here I.M. Bykhovskaya proposes a study of corporeality from the position of meaning, from the position of analyzing its value content. The prerequisites for such a consideration of the body and corporeality through the prism of human measurement are contained in the works of the socialization of the body by M.M. Bakhtin, P. Berger, D. Blacking, M. S. Kagan,

V. L. Krutkin, T. Lukman, M. Moss, H. Plesner, P.D. Tishchenko, A.Sh. Tkhostova, A. Shchutsa, M. Foucault, E.R. Yarskaya-Smirnova.

It is necessary to take into account the point we have indicated that the analysis of the development of philosophical ideas about human corporeality in the historical and philosophical process showed the impossibility of considering it in isolation from spirituality. This precisely explains the fact that in philosophy the categories of external and internal human existence are fixed, and awareness of human corporeality as a value is achieved.

LITERATURE

1. Rozin VM. How can one think of the human body, or On the threshold of the anthropological revolution. IKI: http://www.antropo-log.ru/doc/persons/rozin/rozin8

2. Psychology of physicality / V.P. Zinchenko, T.S. Levi. M., 2005. 731 p.

3. Tishchenko P.D. Body // New philosophical encyclopedia: in 4 volumes / ed. V.S. Stepina et al. M.: Mysl, 2001. T. 4. 605 p.

4. Ogurtsov A.P. Body // New philosophical encyclopedia: in 4 volumes / ed. V.S. Stepina et al. M.: Mysl, 2001. T. 4. 605 p.

5. RoadVA. Body-without-organs // New philosophical encyclopedia: in 4 volumes / ed. V.S. Stepina et al. M.: Mysl, 2001. T. 4. 605 p.

6. Bakhtin MM. Aesthetics of verbal creativity. M.: Khud. lit., 1979. 412 p.

7. Foucault M. The will to truth: beyond knowledge, power and sexuality. Works of different years: per. from fr. M.: Kastal, 1996. 448 p.

8. Rumyantsev O. Culture as a place and time of a person // Creation - creativity - reproduction: philosophical and religious: international. reading

on theory, history and philosophy of culture No. 15. St. Petersburg. : Eidos, 2003. pp. 30-43.

9. Podoroga V A. Phenomenology of the body: an introduction to philosophical anthropology: materials of lecture courses in 1992-1994. M.: Ad

Ma^tesh, 1995. 339 p.

10. Nietzsche F. Will and power: the experience of revaluing all values. M.: REEL-book, 1994. 352 p.

11. Mikhel D.V. The body in Western culture. Saratov: Scientific book, 2000. 171 p.

12. Bykhovskaya IM. Corporality as a sociocultural phenomenon // Culturology. XX century: dictionary / ch. ed. S.Ya. Leviticus. St. Petersburg : University Book, 1997. pp. 464-467.

13. Jung K.G. Man and his symbols. M.: Silver threads, 1998. 368 p.

Body and physicality. Over the entire history of studying and understanding the phenomenon of the body, representatives of various scientific disciplines have accumulated enough material to become confident that corporeality is a subject deeply and thoroughly studied, read, and interpreted. However, this can only fully concern the natural science paradigm (anatomy, physiology, anthropology, biomechanics, sexology, hygiene, etc.). The body as a material substrate, significant for the study and understanding of mental processes, the development of human consciousness, is increasingly being studied by psychosomatics and psychophysiology. V. Mukhina explains this interest by the fact that the real space in which our psyche unfolds and functions and our “I” is truly represented is the space of the human body.

Practical “work” with the body in the field of medicine, health technologies, etc. dates back thousands of years. In short, for the “natural sciences” the human body, for obvious reasons, is a subject of long-standing and close attention.

In addition to the use of the concept “body”, the concept of “corporality” has been widely used in recent years. In this regard, the question arises: are the body and physicality the same thing or are they different concepts? What is physicality as opposed to the body?

The analysis of corporeality, with a fairly complete overview and classification of various research approaches to the study of human corporeality, is presented in the works of modern domestic researchers I.M. Bykhovskaya (in the socio-cultural aspect) and V.L. Krutkina (1993) (in the ontological aspect). In this regard, I.M. Bykhovskaya believes that the term “corporality” does not mean the body that is natural in itself, but its transformation, an “acquired” state that arises not in return, but in addition to the natural one.

“Corporality” is a more or less cultivated body that has acquired, in addition to its original data, natural characteristics, those properties and modifications that are produced by the peculiarities of being a physical person in a specific socio-cultural context. That is physicality- these are new formations of the body, which from the first stages of human development and formation ensured survival through adaptation of the body to the natural and then to the material artificial (technogenic and social) environment; it is the result of a socialization program deployed in historical terms)

One can agree with V.M. Rozin, who from the position of psychological science determines that physicality- not a biological organism, not what we recognize as our body, but a cultural, historical and semiotic phenomenon; a new formation caused by a new form of behavior, something without which this behavior could not take place, is the implementation of a certain cultural and semiotic scheme (concept), i.e. a certain body mode. a kind of text.

K. Heinemann (1980) physicality calls the “social structure” of the body. From his point of view, societies have made different things out of the body as a physical (biological) structure. Namely, the need to eat and drink, the ability to cry and laugh, the need to endure pain and illness remain constant. However, their biological background in different cultures is colored by different social shades. Our body always represents a “social structure” and is an expression of existing social conditions, how we perceive and control our physical self, how we use our body as an expressive means of expression, how we treat and control our body, how we use our body, we dispose of it and relate to it.

If we talk about the body as a social structure, he identifies four aspects: (“body technique”, “expressive movements of the body”, “ethos of the body” or attitude towards one’s own body, control of instincts and needs).

An analysis of the literature on issues of corporeality allows us to identify the external and internal components of corporeality.

External manifestations of physicality:

body shape;

body decoration (tattoo, feathers, costumes, etc.);

expressive body movements, i.e. body positions, gestures, facial expressions, etc.;

“body technique” (social norming of movements)

(methods of walking and running, rhythm of steps, movement of arms and legs, methods of basic motor actions).

bodily distance (proxemics).

Internal manifestations of physicality:

attitude towards one’s own body (acceptance - non-acceptance);

physical fitness and physical qualities;

condition of internal organs and systems;

control over the manifestation of biological programs (instincts and needs).

The difference between three spaces - natural, social and cultural - in which a person resides allows us to raise the question of the corresponding levels of existence, manifestation, and use of the human body. I.M. Bykhovskaya, in addition to the natural and social body (“social structure” according to K. Heisemann), also highlights cultural body

The “natural body” is understood as the biological body of an individual, subject to the laws of existence, functioning, and development of a living organism.

The “social body” is the result of the interaction of the natural body with the social environment: on the one hand, it is a manifestation of its objective, spontaneous influences that stimulate the reactive and adaptive “responses” of the body; on the other hand, it is derived from purposeful influences on it, from conscious adaptation to the goals of social functioning, a tool, and use in various types of activities.

By “cultural body” we mean the product of culturally consistent formation and use by a person of his bodily origin.

By cultural body we understand the physicality that is formed in an athlete, firefighter, rescuer, fashion model, actor, etc. in the process of conscious formation in the process of preparation for specialized activities.

In society, there is a phenomenon of transformation of the human body, which is studied by a number of humanities: philosophy, anthropology, sociology, psychology, etc. Comprehensive cultivation of the body in order to adapt a person for certain social functions has been carried out since ancient times. And human development in society has ceased to be a purely natural and spontaneously socialized process; it has become relatively manageable.

Formation of physicality. B.V. Markov 4] defines physicality as a special disciplined body, and the way of forming corporeality (disciplined bodies) is the creation of special disciplinary (disciplinary) spaces within which the previous system of incentives and reactions to new desires and aspirations is replaced. He includes such disciplinary spaces as: family, school, religion, medicine, art..., which in the form of various models and recommendations contribute to the formation of new body formations.

From the first stages of human development and formation, survival was ensured by adaptation of the body to the natural, and then to the material “artificial” (technogenic) and social environment. The body of a slave and a master, a knight and a priest, a scientist and a worker differ significantly from each other, and not so much externally as internally in the type of reactions, drives, ability of self-control and self-government. Games and dancing, coloring and tattooing, developing manners and gestures, controlling effects - all this helps control the body, its needs and desires.

B.V. Markov identifies the “inner body” as a set of internal organic sensations, muscle tension, drives, desires, needs, experiences of fear, anger, delight, etc. and external: structure, appearance. The inner body is transformed in the process of repressing vital experiences and replacing them with ethical values. For the external body, aesthetic norms are significant... The formation of appearance, appearance and manners is carried out first on the basis of strict regulations, and then becomes a matter of taste and internal tact of an individual. In different historical periods the body was controlled in different ways. In traditional societies, power regulates the external body: uniform, clothing, mask, guise, posture, gestures, manners and ceremonies - all this strictly determines behavior and is a genuine document certifying social affiliation.... As social relations develop, control is transferred from external to internal... ..In modern society, it would seem that there are no strict prohibitions and canons regulating appearance, manners and canons regulating appearance, manners, clothing, etc. However, there are implicit communicative norms that organize both form and internal body affects. First, religion, and then fiction, through the art of verbal portraits and descriptions of emotional experiences, developed role models, according to which the appearance, manners, feelings, and experiences of people are organized.

In the course of history, various types of physicality are formed, and each social structure makes its contribution to the general civilizational process of control and management of the body. In modern civilization there is a particularly intensive process of production of new and exotic forms of physicality, which is radicalized by art, cinema, advertising, photography, and computer technology.

In recent years, body modification has attracted increased public interest as an extravagant new trend in modern fashion. In its most general form, body modifications are various forms and methods of modifying the body through damage to the skin (cutting, scarring, branding, piercing, tattooing, amputations and other surgical interventions), carried out voluntarily, independently or with the help of body modification specialists in order to achieve psychological benefits. , aesthetic, spiritual, ideological goals. The identified forms of body modification reflect the difficulties of social adaptation and coping with stressors and are a sign of problematic behavior with a high risk of developing self-destructive forms of behavior. Researchers come to the conclusion that the presence of body modifications correlates with alcohol and drug abuse, sexual relationships, violence and school problems (Polskaya N.A., 2007).

Man's mastery of his physicality occurs, first of all, at the everyday level through actions that are taken by him under the influence of intentions and desires associated with everyday life. This is a great variety of everyday movements of our microbehavior, forming the world of “ordinary culture”, the scope of which also includes the skills of hygiene, cosmetics, jewelry, hairdressing, perfumery, “hiding” and “revealing” the body in clothes with the help of changing fashion.

According to the degree of specialization, scientists distinguish two levels of culture - ordinary and specialized. Everyday culture is the possession of the customs of everyday life and the national environment in which a person lives, the sphere of general conceptual knowledge and generally available skills acquired through three sources: communication in a small group (family, peers, relatives); schooling and general education; mass media The process of mastering everyday culture is called in science general socialization and inculturation of the individual.

Traditional culture makes established demands on the body: the child must master the “correct” poses, posture, head position - everything that creates an ethnic, national type of physical representation of a person among other people. By the end of childhood, the child develops an idea body image as a member of a certain gender and a certain culture. Bodily appearance, posture and plasticity begin to play a fundamental role for gender identification in adolescence and youth. Becoming - the general physique, a person’s posture, demeanor, as well as plasticity - consistency, proportionality of movements and gestures, have cultural content.

In “everyday culture” there is awareness and comprehension of one’s own physicality, influencing it, managing it, making maximum use of its capabilities. A special area of ​​everyday culture that deals with human corporeality is medicine, or rather its valeological sections. Physical culture and sports also belong to the sphere of everyday culture. Their main functional purpose is to identify, develop, and improve a person’s bodily and motor abilities.

Physical culture as a space for the formation of physicality. Throughout the development of mankind, specialized sociocultural practices were created to transform the bodily and motor qualities of a person: the Athenian and Spartan systems of physical education; knightly system of military physical training; German, Swedish, Sokol gymnastics systems; yoga; Wushu; qigong, etc. At the end of the 19th century, the strengthening of cultural exchange between countries, the interpenetration of cultures, including physical education systems, the development of psychosocial directions in the physical education systems of industrial states and with a deepening understanding of the social and cultural functions of physical exercise to describe a wide range of problems led to the emergence of a generalizing term sociocultural practices existing at that time. The term “physical culture” has become such a term in a number of countries.

Without delving into theoretical disputes regarding the essence of physical culture, we will highlight the main approaches:

activity-based (V.M. Vydrin, L.P. Matveev, etc.)

value-based (V.K. Balsevich, L.I. Lubysheva, V.I. Stolyarov, etc.)

cultural studies (I.M. Bykhovskaya)

We are more impressed by the cultural approach, according to which physical culture is an area of ​​culture that regulates human activity (its direction, methods, results) associated with the formation, development and use of a person’s bodily and motor abilities in accordance with the norms accepted in the culture (subculture), values ​​and patterns.

This view incorporates both activity and value approaches.

From the position of the three-dimensional model of culture proposed by A. S. Karmin (2003), established sociocultural practices (components of physical culture) have a space formed by three planes: technological, social-value and cognitive-value. Technological(regulatory-cognitive) component of space is represented motor actions, rules for performing actions, the composition of permissible actions and methods of sports competition(sports technique and tactics), inventory, equipment, grounds and stadiums, uniforms.

Cognitive-value component is theory and training methods, i.e. knowledge that ensures the success of the athlete’s actions, terminology.

Social-value component is relationships, which develop between members of the same team, rivals, competition participants, judges and fans, fan associations (clubs of fans of teams or athletes), norms of behavior, slang.

A person immersed in such sociocultural space“absorbs”, masters and appropriates socio-cultural experience, i.e. the process of socialization occurs, including the formation of physicality.

V. Mukhina notes that in competitive games with rules, reflection, ability to physical and volitional imitation. It is during the competition process directly in close bodily mutual communication the child learns to reflect on others and on himself. He learns to “read” his intentions from the expressive poses, movements, and facial expressions of his peer, which is facilitated by the competitive situation itself; he learns the dialogue of gesture, facial expression and gaze; at the same time, he learns to “hide” his intentions, to hide his facial expressions and bodily expressive postures and movements. He gains the ability to hide his conditions and true intentions. A child's reflective experience in play and competitive environments advances him in terms of social and personal development.

Competitive games provide a range of opportunities for the development of a child's personality. In competition, children focus on the achievements of their peers. The desire to “be like everyone else” stimulates the child’s physical development and brings him up to the general average level. At the same time, by competing, the child also claims to become a winner. The desire to win stimulates the competitor. If successful, the child takes on the pose of a winner: shoulders turned, head held high. The face is rosy, the eyes are shining.

Competition also includes the possibility of failure in comparison with others. If unsuccessful, the child immediately breaks down - his posture expresses a dejected state: his shoulders are raised, his head is lowered, his gaze is sad, there are tears in his eyes. Unfulfilled aspirations for success in physical exercises and games can deprive the child of the desire to achieve: he may begin to refuse to participate in physical exercises and competitions.

Thus, it can be stated that physical culture is a sociocultural space in which the formation of a person’s physicality occurs, starting from childhood and especially intensively in adolescence and youth.

Human corporeality is defined by the Boss as the bodily sphere of fulfillment of human existence. Boss is one of the few existentialists who pays serious attention to human corporeality. Physicality is not limited to what is under the skin; it is widespread, as is the attitude towards the world. Boss speaks of the continuation of the physicality of ways of being-in-the-world. He gives an example of pointing to something. Corporality extends to the object that is pointed at, and even further, to all the phenomena of the world with which I deal. Such corporeality is a manifestation of human existence; it has not only a material, but also a semantic, existential character. A person's attitude towards the world is always reflected in his attitude towards his body.

The traditional natural science approach considers the human body as one of many natural objects. Obviously, only thanks to this approach does it become possible to influence a person, as well as control him through physicochemical and cybernetic methods. Only in this case does it become possible to use the natural scientific research method. There is nothing wrong with the natural scientific method itself. The problem is that this kind of idea of ​​​​a person is transferred to the entire human reality.

Boss says that by considering the corporeality of man exclusively as a material thing, natural science neglects everything that makes the corporeality of man actually human. As an example, he cites art objects, in particular paintings by Picasso. Boss wonders whether the natural science approach would be able to grasp the essence of these objects through its method - i.e. measuring the dimensions of the paintings, conducting a chemical analysis of the paint, etc. The Boss's answer is unequivocal - of course not. In a similar way, in his opinion, the situation is with the study of human corporeality.

A person, according to Boss, feels most like a person precisely when he ceases to be aware of his physical corporeality. However, when a person forgets his body, he does not cease to be bodily. All manifestations of human life are physical. Looks, ideas and visualizations are just as physical as direct touch, since in these cases we are dealing with color, smell, taste and surface texture. Everything that we see with the so-called inner gaze is also bodily. Even the most abstract mathematical thoughts are permeated by our physicality.

In order to understand the essence of human corporeality, we must distinguish it from the corporeality of inanimate physical objects. A similar division can be made from two starting points. The first concerns the ultimate boundaries of our corporeality and the corporeality of physical objects. The second represents the fundamental difference between the locations (ways of occupying space) of human existence and inanimate material objects.

If we consider the human body as a physical object, its boundaries will end at the skin. At the same time, the indisputable fact is that wherever we are, we are always in some kind of relationship with something beyond our skin. Does it follow from this that we are always outside our physical body? This assumption also misleads us. The boss says that in this case we will mix the phenomena of Dasein and human corporeality. We will never be able to comprehend the phenomenon of corporeality if we consider it separately from the world. The differences between these two types of physicality of a person and an inanimate object are, first of all, not quantitative, but qualitative.

Although Boss says that the phenomena of Dasein and corporeality are different, nevertheless, we can still find many common features. This is, first of all, the so-called forwardness in relation to human corporeality, which found its expression in the so-called bodying forth. Our body always seems to extend further forward in both spatial and temporal aspects. It extends to the potential ways of being in which we exist and which constitute our existence at any given moment in time. “The boundaries of my body coincide with the boundaries of my openness to the world,” says Boss. Therefore, bodily phenomena must be understood in the context of a changing relationship with the world.

As an example, Boss cites illustrations from the case of Regula Zürcher. Regula walks into a cafe with her friend and starts talking about summer holidays. At the same time, she assumes a relaxed pose in a chair, as if she were already on a beach in the Canary Islands, while her eyes and ears are attuned to the café's surroundings. Thus, it would be incorrect to say that Regula crossed the ocean only in her thoughts; according to the Boss's concept, she did it also physically, as a complete human being.

From whatever angle we view human corporeality, we always find that bodying forth precedes perception and actual existence. Indeed, says Boss, human corporeality is phenomenologically secondary, although our feelings tell us about its primacy.

Boss focuses on the difference in the limits of perception of our senses and what lies at the very basis of their ability to function. For example, my ear cannot hear something a thousand kilometers away, but my “audibility” can, my eye cannot see what will happen here in a month, but my vision can.

The next point, as mentioned earlier, concerns the differences in the corporeality of humans and inanimate objects in relation to the place they occupy. This difference lies in our relationship to “here” and “there”. “At any given moment in time,” Boss writes, “my “here” is determined by the being of the things to which I am open. I am open time-space and exist by meeting things where they are” (Boss, 1979, p. 105). The being-here of things is radically different, since at any given moment in time they are not open to anyone or anything.

The boundaries of my physicality coincide with the boundaries of my openness to the world. The consequence of this is that our openness allows us to push the boundaries of our physicality. And to the extent that we remain closed, to the same extent our corporeality narrows. Simply put, openness expands our living space and sphere of presence in the world, while closedness narrows it (Boss 1979, pp.100-105).