Ordinary People

The reaction to the Romky murder that happened the other day in St. Petersburg - in many ways, after all, a hysterical laugh, jokes about Altusser , Ponasenkov’s hands , an unsuccessful reconstruction of the captel of the brothel, etc. - It is characteristic that the boundaries are suddenly found here. Not the boundaries of the norm - but the boundaries of words. The finished framework is how to describe what happened, how to comprehend it.

It seems to be we can talk about everything - words are ready for everything. So it seems, until you stumble upon the border. That is, it will fail the entire standard mechanism. If the killer was a student/hipster, etc. - That is the finished "to what the youth has come", the groan about generations and other apocalyptic exclamations. If his last name was not Sokolov, then the arguments that these foreigners were doing. If someone with a strange profession, which descended or, on the contrary, has reached the top, then again about what is happening in the tributary world or how much wealth and success corrupts.

And here - it is the htonic tossing. Among us. Right at hand. It is no coincidence that in the news of Sokolov constantly reinss to the professor - the story finally acquires literature: Peter, Moika, Professor, Hands. Instead of incomprehensible, an associate professor is not clear - a classically completed character.

Hence, such a strong emphasis on reconstruction is that which allows you to place the character in the "strange", get rid of the tossing crushing of the htonic-and once again issue a laugh that at least somehow resolves stress.

But in fact, this murder in its dry balance does not tell anything new about human nature. Yes, people kill each other. Moreover, most often they kill those who are well aware of, with whom they are in close relationships and so on. - It is not at all tendent to rush to strangers, but if it happens, then this just most often indicates a mental illness. Even at first glance, terrible details with the dismemberment of the body and an attempt to get rid of it, throwing it into the sink - rather a certificate in favor of the norm than deviations: do you really, how else to get rid of the body, living in the center of St. Petersburg in the old house and not on the ground floor? To drag him up the stairs, wrapping it in a carpet, put it in the trunk and take it to the surrounding forests? Dig a hole on the playground? Or save, falling asleep with lime, in a home bath? Here, alas, the option with dismemberment is the most rational, “natural”, if it is permissible so - and speaking of such plots, you have to talk about human nature, and it is far from how we would like to represent ourselves.

I myself believe that sexual relations of the teacher/student are a sphere of incredible. And at the same time is not ready to formulate this position too hard

Actually, when something loud happens - from offensive statements either to the Russian language, or his condition, or to the domestic and foreign policy - before the murder - interest is not so much the statements and actions themselves as the reaction to them. It is the reaction that makes them loud - and the presence of a reaction means that they cling to something in a state of minds.

The discussion mainly went on three lines: first of all, towards the introduction of a compulsory psychiatric examination of university employees-in order to identify psychopaths, secondly, in the reasoning of the admissibility or inadmissibility of sexual relations between teachers and students and, thirdly, about the dangers of reconstruction. At first, all the proposals prevailed to strictly ban or, in any case, take a closer look. As he wrote for a very long time, and this proves that the reactions in this case are “universal”, Gilbert Kit Chesteron - and what Evgeny Gubnitsky recalled the other day:

"Finally, people who hope to decide what they do not understand, we know them all. If we all know them. If the hairdresser cuts his throat to the client, because the bride was dancing with another or went to donkey races, many will rebel against the institutions involved in the matter. It was necessary, they would say, they will prohibit the hairdressers, or shaving, or dancing, or dancing. I'm afraid that donkeys will never be banned. "

How easy it is to notice - the problem is not in the insufficiency of prohibitions, but in the fact that existing norms are not fulfilled. So, any teacher of the university is often forced to pass medical examinations annually annually, where, by the way, there is a conclusion and a psychiatrist, but also to bring certificates from the Ministry of Internal Affairs about the absence of a criminal record. Almost every university has an internal regulation, the Ethics Code or something similar, where more or less details are spelled out - the ABC, such as the requirements to behave respectfully towards colleagues and students, to prevent ambiguous and insulting statements, not to mention actions - and all these prescriptions are equipped with sanctions up to dismissal.

The idea to introduce another certificate, write additional regulations, etc. - It is remarkable if your task is to report on the measures taken. But judging by how vividly and vigorously of this kind of initiatives are accepted by society - bureaucratic logic is in harmony with the ideas of the public about reality. Which, in general, is somewhat strange-since the speakers themselves seem to face this reality in a variety of ways and could have noticed for a long time that there is some gap between the report and reality, sometimes a very significant one-and the report on the elimination of the clearance is not embedded.

However, the most interesting - in terms of the sudden discovery of public disruption - the moment was discovered precisely in connection with the question of the admissibility or inadmissibility of sexual relations between teachers and students. First of all, it seems to me that this issue is directly related to St. Petersburg history - but, as often happens, one highlights completely different.

The focus turned out to be a complete discord about the relationship of the teacher-student-that is, it is not a situation when for some this is fundamentally unacceptable and requires a tough response, but for others-a common practice, the norm of life, what does not cause praise, but what is difficult to condemn, just as it is impossible to condemn the widespread. No, the situation has revealed a much more complex configuration-that which is completely immoral for some, for others, often their own colleagues, acts as a moral-acceptable. That is, not a common ordinary norms-but with which you have to put up by the imperfection of human nature, society or anything else, but not causing moral doubts.

And here, a specific St. Petersburg business is far in the background, the plot of discussions turns out to be autonomous and revealing a fundamental moral disagreement, with the maximum possible scatter of positions - from absolutely unacceptable to approved and romanticized. And thus, you have to return to the original - the due to a lot of reasons for the requirement of all new norms and regulators. Where it is impossible to agree on the merits in any way - it is impossible to even agree on the very presence of the problem, there the need for legal norm acts in the forefront, even if it is called an “ethical” or “moral” code. As an objective measure, which - equipped with a sanction, will determine how to do in one case or another, regardless of the fact that you yourself or those around you think about the morality or immorality of this act. In a world where it is impossible to agree on the merits - it remains only to rely on the external norm.

And a few more words about university morality. I myself believe that sexual relations of the teacher/student are a sphere of incredible. And at the same time, it is not ready to formulate this position too hard - since he himself does not have an experience of such a temptation. The real temptation that would be close to you - and which you overcame or surrendered. And where this is not - moral pathos and rigorism are easily given, since abstractions are discussed, it is easy to be speculative and therefore decisive - cheaply.

Andrey Tesl - philosopher

The "Opinion" expressed in the heading of the point of view may not coincide with the position of the editorial office