"This is not the same thought"

Our conversation with Sergey Enikolopov , cand. Psychol. sciences, head of the department of medical psychology of the Scientific Center for Mental Health of the RAMS, head. Department of Criminal Psychology of the Faculty of Legal Psychology of the Moscow City Psychological and Pedagogical University, took place at Moscow State University, where the farewell ceremony with S.P. Kapitsa, a few hours before the announcement of the Pussy Riot sentence. Talked by Natalia Demina.

- How would you comment on the psychological situation in society in connection with the Pussy Riot case?

- This business, inherently, of course, is not worth a damned egg, but it catalyzed the processes that were in society. It shifted in the radical direction of some and others, made people think about their position. Unfortunately, more aggressive won from both side. For our society, this is a very dangerous trend, because already we have a high level of aggression and hatred in society. It does not have a feeling of social justice, and against this background there is also such a strong confrontation between religious and atheistic ideologies. All this, of course, does not contribute to peace and, the most sad, does not contribute to any further progress in interpersonal relationships.

- And they will object and say: on the contrary, it was good that society began to talk about these issues, think and say problems about the role of religion in society, the interaction of the Russian Orthodox Church and the authorities ...

- You see, this is not that thought. In such discussions, people usually say whether they are “for” or “against”. But society is not allowed to realize how to get out of such situations ... On the one hand, the act of girls is an ugly trick. And the roof is already completely “going” when someone begins to argue that such a part in the temple does not belong to the church, but only rented to it.

It's not even who is right and who is to blame. The fact is that as soon as the conversations of this kind appear, it turns out that everything is profanno, everywhere you can crap, there are no sacred places in society. We have already lost several sacred places: hospital, school, court. If three of the four did a lot to lose this sacredness, well, they got their own measure, then the church remained on their territory, and it was their territory, and ours - in another place. But when someone is introduced into the sacred territory and makes it profanna, then everything is profanno. And the life of any person becomes profane.

- What is the importance of sacredness in society? They will tell you that our state should remain secular. The befitting of the world has long happened.

-There should be a territory where some people know that this is their territory. It can be anything, but such territories should be. In addition, these territories are like some tuning forces that support certain values. I’m not talking about the fact that these social institutions are ideal, but we know that in this territory a certain social institution supports and retains its values ​​(in the temple - religious, in court - justice, in school - knowledge).

And when all this is blurred, but nothing can be offered in return, then everything becomes permitted. And then the worst version of Dostoisyna begins. There should be islands of value structures in society. Or maybe the remains. A large number of people behave decently because somewhere deep down they have some religious values. You can discuss and say that they and the secular person are exactly the same, but, in fact, this is a more serious conversation, because it is easier for a religious person to live and easier to behave correctly. He knows what to do, and the atheist should solve this problem every time. I was familiar with Natalia Traubberg, a deeply believers and very intelligent. She said that she could not imagine how to be an atheist, that if she were an atheist, she would probably become a drug addict, an alcoholic or a criminal, and therefore she respects atheists who solve the problems of being daily. And at the same time, it is easier for an atheist to solve these problems when there is something tunneling when you can compare your position with the position of believers. And when this is not, then everything collapses.

Therefore, here it is not in my attitude to Pussy Riot, but in my assessment of what is happening. Unfortunately, society does not think about whether there are sacred places, if there is how to equip ourselves, what values ​​can be offered so that people do not cut each other. In a country where the highest level of aggression is a high level of murders and suicides, how can one and then “destroy to the base and then.”? How much can this be done? In this sense, the unproductiveness of this conflict seems obvious to me, but maybe only to me.

- What can you give a forecast in the case of a soft or hard sentence in court? Do you see some kind of fork, or is it not?

- Unfortunately, there is no such fork. If the court gives a mild punishment, then everyone will think that you can do the way they, and even become famous throughout the world. And if the court gives a strict punishment, then this will be a kind of spit in the direction that believes that the girls are not to blame. In any case, they are not to blame enough for them to give a colony for several years. We even let the killers let go.

- Tell me how are an expert in the field of social psychology, what can journalists and scientists do to improve the situation in society?

- Don't know. One part of the scientists, my colleagues, signed a letter about the ugliness of the psychological examination. They did the right thing right that they signed. But it is very important, especially for the future, to realize that the expert cannot be a “fan” of any of the parties; If you are experts, you cannot condemn other people's views and actions only because they do not share your values. I can be very pretty as a person, but he is a killer, and I honestly in the examination should explain the motives of his behavior. On the other hand, he may be absolutely vile, but according to the results of an expert study, I must note what does not give grounds for his conviction. This is all very difficult. In fact, I am grateful to my teacher, who taught me to understand what it is to be an expert. No need to involve a person who is prejudice against someone to psychological examination.

* * *

Comment

I want to continue the conversation begun by Sergei Enikolopov. Regardless of how much each of us agrees with this or not, this is certainly a clear expressed point of view of the enemy and the action itself, and the socio-political position standing behind it. However, it seems that a respected expert wants to distance himself from discussing the problems of judicial arbitrariness and politicization of the court, which most now concern society in connection with the scandalous process and the announcement of the sentence. What S. Enikolopov is talking about was worried about society mainly in February this year. And the majority then answered this question by the disapproval of the very act of girls from Pussy Riot, not recognizing him, however, by the "atrocity", for which the most severe punishment is relied.

As far as one can judge by the above interview, Sergei Enikolopov himself occupies exactly the same position - i.e. regrets what has happened, but does not require tough punishment. On the other hand, calls to consider the Pussy Riot act with the norm and repeat this yet and from the side of sane intelligent people is also not heard (see for example, http://lleo.me/dnevnik/2012/08/19.html ). So, contrary to the statements of some odious figures from the Russian Orthodox Church, official information channels and authorities, our society in this matter is not at all split in a “tragic way”, but quite in solidarity, and this solidarity was only strengthened when announcing a shocking sentence (after which even the Russian Orthodox Church considered it necessary to sharply mitigate their official position, speaking out with, mildly, late, late. statement).

That is, a consensus has practically developed among people of the sane: the dancing in the church is not approved, but the whole process over Pussy Riot and condemnation are considered a tremendous mistake. Of course, the degree of disapproval of the Pussy Riot action itself, the attitude towards it and the thoughts of the consequences differ from a person to a person is already very significant, but arguing about the inadmissibility of everything like a kind is like discussing the weather. Such “suicidal” actions are inevitable, they were and will, even regardless of what sanctions are provided for. But in a normal, healthy environment, even an obscene protest does not turn into any serious consequences - they simply quickly forget about it, but in an electrified, hysterical atmosphere, any careless gesture is already a tragedy, a concussion of the foundations of statehood.

In this sense, Pussy Riot, of course, acted as a “provocateur”, more precisely, a sort of trouble -free novice esculap, which was carefully pierced by a long -standing abscess. And then everything came together - both the self -interest of the church hierarchs, led by ambitious Cyril, and the complexes of the rapidly “bloated” flock, and, most importantly, the most acute critic of Vladimir Putin, who reacts more and more painfully to personal attacks. Everyone managed to hurt the desperate Pussy so much. It would be possible for us to live without a spilled pus, but it broke through. It is stupid to hope that if now they will punish them approximately, then everything will immediately return to normal and the disease will somehow resolve. Some promotions will still continue inevitably, no matter what it threatens, because it “acts”, after all, there is a reaction. The fact that the church and the state are unstable can not calmly and adequately respond to challenges, refrain from lawlessness and respond with repression - a distinct sign of ill health and despair. The disease cannot be driven deep into it, and the peaceful (albeit “obscene”) protest cannot be reacted with pure violence.

Many say that in addition to Putin, the victims of this action were the innocent sincere believers who are upset and discouraged (although we immediately note that the authorities are primarily guilty of the inflating of this story). In principle, it was regret about the “loss of something sacred” and became the main motive for Sergey Enikolopov. Moreover, from his point of view, it is not so important that it will be a source of this “sacred” - a school, a university, a court ... Well, let the church, since it happened ... Well, this is not possible.

Who deprived the Russian Orthodox Church, and to be precise - the Cathedral of Christ the Savior as a symbol of the official Russian Orthodox Church - sacredness and where it is still preserved (after all, it is difficult to imagine the same gloating on the Internet about the invasion, say, to the Old Believers Temple, and in any not so famous Orthodox church, which, by the way, did the girls also did unnoticed)? Essentially, the official Russian Orthodox Church has deprived itself to this sacredness when she began to extend it to those areas that in the secular state are not and should not appear, and very persistently and aggressively, by introducing religious subjects and “house temples” into schools and universities; invasions of the army, kindergartens and other areas, where before seeing the priest was unthinkable; an attempt to establish a dress code for passers-by, the creation of Orthodox squads, the dispersal of objectionable exhibitions, film examinations and anti-human demonstrations; Finally, prudent support of the election candidate in exchange for preferences, the use of an administrative resource when withdrawing real estate and museum values ​​in their favor, etc. Not to mention traditional cooperation with the "organs" and Navar on alcohol and cigarettes. But many warned! As they say, if you peer into the abyss for a long time, then the abyss will peer into you. And how now to demand sacredness and solitude?!

In general, if you consider everything around you, then wait that society will consider it that it belonged only to you - for everything is now common - and will invade the "sacred" territory. Respect for your views can only be demanded when you respect strangers. To the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, let's say (built, by the way, mainly for state money), forcibly sent schoolchildren-graduesman to receive certificates, even a different faith, and there were scandals on this occasion. So in fact and in belonging, this is just such a state guard, the symbol is no longer faith, but statehood, the union of Putin and Cyril. That Pusi was displayed with the most unexpected effect.

Of course, we fully support the idea of ​​the pure of separation of the state and the church, which, apparently, is the road and Sergei Enikolopov, and, yes, the separation of the sacred from the Profantnoy, but that the Russian Orthodox Church finally realizes some of its frames and will delimit themselves from those who do not need it. In principle, believers and priests who do not share the great -power pathos of the Patriarch, and now in no way accepted anti -Putin speech in their own account. Perhaps in a reasonably arranged state there should not be any generally accepted sacred institutions or “national ideas”. The only sacred that atheists and the church could have converged on (not even Orthodox or even Christian) and a reasonable state is the sacredness of a person, each individual and without exception, his personality, personality, internal beliefs ... But when the universal awareness of this simple idea will come to Russia, unfortunately, is unclear.

M.B.