ask.com/r?t=p&d=synus&s=spd&c=**spbt1&app=aoth&l=dir&o=0&sv=**
0a5c4301&ip=b009f96e&id=**E5343A13DFF8F8AE1A1F3A256F485C**
F8&q=fyodor+vasilyuk&p=1&qs=**121&ac=24&g=5a63upz7qBNcw4&en=**
gs&io=5&b=alg&tp=d&ec=10&pt=**Notes+on+perezhivanie&ex=&url=**
&u=http://www.ethicalpolitics.**org/seminars/perezhivanie.htm<http://search.speedbit.com/r.aspx?aff=&p=0&u=http://wzuy1.ask.com/r?t=p&d=synus&s=spd&c=spbt1&app=aoth&l=dir&o=0&sv=0a5c4301&ip=b009f96e&id=E5343A13DFF8F8AE1A1F3A256F485CF8&q=fyodor+vasilyuk&p=1&qs=121&ac=24&g=5a63upz7qBNcw4&en=gs&io=5&b=alg&tp=d&ec=10&pt=Notes+on+perezhivanie&ex=&url=&u=http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/perezhivanie.htm>
______________________________**__
From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, 10 January 2012, 4:01:27
Subject: Re: [xmca] varying definitions of perezhivanie
Michael, Haydi, Christine and others, thank you for drawing my
attention to Fyodor Vasilyuk. Just read his book and loved it. It's one of
those books that even though you can follow it as you read, it is not easy
to recall afterwards. Anyway, here is my synopsis.
*The Psychology of Experiencing*. The Resolution of Life’s Critical
Situations. by Fyodor Vasiluk Progress Publishers 1984.
This is a book about living through critical situations in life.
“Experiencing” is a translation of “/perezhivanie/” and Vasilyuk uses it to
mean “any process which brings about resolution of a critical
life-situation, irrespective of how that process is directly felt by the
individual.” Vasilyuk is an Activity Theorist, and sees experiencing as an
activity, not just something to which happens to a person, but that
hitherto Activity Theory had no term for it. So he has appropriated
Vygotsky’s use of the term as a unit for the development of character. But
I notice that for Vasilyuk, /perezhivanie /is the whole “working through”
of the crisis situation, which is elsewhere called “catharsis,” whereas
what others call the /perezhivanie /he calls the crisis-situation. The
situation is of course equally subjective and objective, arising in the
world, as it is experienced by the subject according to the subject’s
commitments in the
world as well as uncontrolled events arising from the objective world.
Vasilyuk is a superb dialectician. Experiencing is the process in which
character is formed, but also, it is the process of character itself: both
process and product.
The main part of the book hinges on the idea that the inner world of
the subject, the active side which cognizes, feels, perceives and acts may
be either /simple/ or /complex/; the outer world of the subject, the
subject’s life-world is either /easy/ or /difficult/. It is not so much
that there are two kinds of inner and outer world, but that any specific
crisis is derived from one of the four possible conjunctions: simple-easy,
complex-easy, simple-difficult or complex-difficult. Each possible
conjunction also contains the others, but one conjunction is dominant in
the specific case.
Vasilyuk calls an activity a “life relation” but so far as I can see
the word “project” perfectly describes what he has in mind. A simple inner
world means that the crisis arises from the pursuit of just one activity
and has no implication for any other project. A complex inner world means
that the subject is motivated by multiple projects so that changes in the
progress of one project has implications for other projects (eg they may be
conflicting, or dependent on one another) and resolving a crisis becomes
something complex in that sense. An easy outer world means that the crisis
arises from inner causes, not existential threats to the project or
blockages having their origin independently of the subject. A difficult
outer world means that a project in which the subject is committed faces a
blockage or disaster.
Vasilyuk goes through all the possible combinations of strategies that
subjects resort to to resolve a crisis arising in each of these four
worlds, and there are all sorts of sub-types, etc. These categories are
ahistorical so Vasilyuk is able to explore the possibilities by logical
means rather than abstracting them from empirical data. Of course the
circumstances which give rise to crises and the strategies available to
subjects are culturally and historically determined. But analysis of a
crisis and therapeutical assistance depends first of all in diagnosing the
kind of crisis the subject is undergoing. So the elaboration of the theory
is very logical, but one gets the feeling that Vasilyuk has had the benefit
of the experience of offering assistance to thousands of people going
through severe crises and that his theory is robust as a diagnostic tool.
The four kinds of crisis are (simple-easy) stress, (simple-difficult)
frustration, (complex-easy) conflict and (complex-difficult) crisis. He
says that /stress /is a “hedonistic” crisis – the subject is concerned only
with the here and now and getting more; /frustration /is a “realistic”
crisis – the subject has to accept the unattainability of the object and
determine what it is they /really/ need, not just the specific thing which
has the meaning for them of their object; /conflict /is a "crisis of
values" – the subject is obliged to revisit the bases for their past
actions and question their values which have led them into a tragic
situation; crisis as such is a creative crisis, which obliges the subject
to transform the meaning of the absent object so as to make the
psychologically impossible situation possible; this means a life-crisis
resolved by creating a new life-world, a new self. This is all very complex
and I can’t do it
justice. It will take a lot of study. I like the way he deals with the
concept of "values" as deep structures, underlying commitments which can be
brought to light only by a subject's /perezihivanie/.
The section on psychotherapy relied on a different categorisation of
four “levels of awareness.” These are the Unconscious, Experiencing (here
in the ordinary meaning of the word, more like Undergoing), Reflection, and
Apprehension. This structure of consciousness or awareness is defined by
the activity of the Observer and the Observed (a bit like Mead's I and Me).
Crises may be felt in one (mainly at the given moment) “level” and Vasilyuk
says that a different therapeutic strategy is required in each case. In the
case of the Unconscious, it is a /monologue by the therapist /who tells the
patient what the break in consciousness reveals; in the case of Undergoing
it is a /monologue by the patient /who gives voice to their experience so
as to become aware of it, with the empathy of the therapist, can move it
into Reflection; in Apprehension therapy requires a /dialogue /between the
therapist and the patience to bring out the nature of the