Maleychuk Gennady IvanovichDespite the fact that the concept of choice is not psychological, the implementation of choice itself is largely determined by the personality properties of the chooser, which allows us to analyze this phenomenon from the perspective of psychology. As a subject of psychological analysis, the phenomenon of choice has rarely come to the attention of psychologists. The exceptions are the studies of K. Levin (within the framework of field theory), Atkinson (within the framework of the theory of knowledge). To a large extent, the issues of making a choice were raised in the works of psychologists and humanitarian philosophers - E. Fromm, J. Bugental, I. Yalom, A. Maslow, etc. As for psychological practice, the issue of client choice is one of the central issues and from that The extent to which a client is able to make a choice determines the degree of his psychological health. In this article I will try to analyze the psychological mechanisms of choice and consider the phenomenological and ontological aspect of this phenomenon. To do this, you need to answer the following questions: How is the choice made? By whom (what) is it determined? What actually can be considered a choice, that is, is a choice always a choice? In my reasoning, I will adhere to the existential-phenomenological approach, based on the texts of K.G. Jung, Z. Freud, E. Fromm, J. Bugental and other researchers. Before answering these questions, let's consider the structure of the phenomenon being analyzed. If we proceed from the idea of ​​choice as a kind of activity, then on the basis of reflection in the structure of this phenomenon we can distinguish a subject (a choice is always the choice of someone), an object or an object (a choice is always a choice of something) and the relationships between them .The subject of choice in this context is the one who makes the choice, who is active. Activity can come either from the subject itself or be set from the outside; therefore, we can talk about internal (subjective) and external (extra-subjective) activity. The subject of choice is what the subject’s activity is directed towards. The subject of activity (choice) can be anything (some thing, profession, spouse... life path). The subject of choice is determined by the needs of the subject. Thus, if we imagine the components of this phenomenon as the object of choice or subject (P), the subject of choice (S) and the relationship between them, then the ideal model of choice will look like this: S------P If we proceed from the presence of both internal and external activity that determines choice, then a trivial question at first glance: “Is choice always the activity of the subject?” seems quite appropriate. Having defined choice as the activity of a subject aimed at objects external to him, it is appropriate to ask the question of whether this activity is always determined by the subject, his internal, subjective needs, that is, the needs of his Self? Only if there is a positive answer to this question can we talk about choice as an activity conscious by the subject, free from external influences, determined by his I-needs. Based on this understanding of choice, we can talk about its following conditions: determination by the needs of the I and its awareness . Thus, we proceed from the fact that choice is an attribute of the subject, the Self, and it is necessary to analyze this phenomenon in the context of the psychological characteristics of the subject making the choice. It is necessary, based on our ideal model of choice as an internal, determined I activity, to determine the properties of this activity, as well as what qualities the subject must have in order for his choice to be truly his choice, his activity. At the heart of any activity is a certain need. The very nature of activity will be determined by the dominant need. In my work I will proceed from a systemic idea of ​​psychic reality, which is a multi-level structure, that is, having different levels of psychic reflection. Constructed model of psychic realityis based on the views of S. Freud, K.G. Young, L.S. Vygotsky, V. Frankl, etc. and to some extent represents a synthesis of the views of these scientists.Z. Freud laid the foundation for the differentiation of mental reality, highlighting two levels in it: consciousness and the unconscious, understanding by it the totality of all processes, both conscious and unconscious [7]. Before Z. Freud, the psyche and consciousness were considered as synonyms. Subsequently, the study of mental reality as a complex, multi-level phenomenon was carried out in 2 directions: depth psychology (students of S. Freud, and above all K. G. Jung) and apex psychology (L. S. Vygotsky, V. Frankl, A. Maslow, etc.) Representatives of these directions identify specific sublevels in each of the designated levels. In particular, in the unconscious the individual and collective unconscious were distinguished, in consciousness - individual and collective consciousness. The structure of mental reality has the following form: - Individual consciousness - Collective consciousness - Individual unconscious - Collective unconscious Let's give a brief description of the identified levels. The collective unconscious includes unconscious layers of the psyche, genetic, generic forms of its existence. C. G. Jung proceeded from the idea that the unconscious cannot be reduced to biologically determined, instinctive layers of the psyche, but covers the entire sum of mental experience of all previous generations, manifested in mental life in the form of certain types of behavior, emotional reactions, images, spontaneous fantasies , dreams. In the words of C. G. Jung, this is the dark, “night” side of the psyche, the deeper layers of the psyche, “...losing their individual exclusivity, as they retreat further and further into the darkness. “Darkening down” means for them an approach to autonomously functioning systems...”[9,125] Specific forms of manifestation of the collective unconscious are archetypes. Archetype (from the Greek arhetipos - prototype) - images that pass from generation to generation, inherent in all people without exception and acquired by them from birth. Archetypes are elements of the collective unconscious, common to all humanity. They are inherited, just as body structure is inherited. In each individual person, in addition to personal memories, there are “original” images, inherited human ideas. Archetypes structure our understanding of the world, ourselves and other people. They appear in mythological narratives, fairy tales, dreams, as well as in some mental disorders. The set of archetypes is limited. The most significant of them are anima, animus, quaternity, selfhood. [8] For our analysis, it is important that the collective unconscious in the form of archetypes participates in the structuring of the world, is included in the content of the image of the world and the image of the Self, determining the behavior of the subject, and is not realized by him. The individual or personal unconscious is another level of the unconscious psyche. According to K.G. Jung, its content includes everything that is perceived by a person’s senses, but is not registered by consciousness, as well as what he was once aware of, but forgot [9]. Thus, the personal unconscious includes experiences that are not associated with consciousness, that is, not attributed to the Self. Not all information coming from the external and internal world is realized by a person. And it is not surprising, since too much psychic energy would be spent on realizing it. Most of the information is either not realized or is perceived automatically (a kind of autopilot), which allows a person to save mental energy. The other part of the content of the unconscious consists of previously conscious, but subsequently repressed from consciousness (actually forgotten for the Self) experiences, due to their inadequacy to the image of the Self or the image of the world. These repressed states of consciousness, as is known, are forgotten for the I, but do not disappear, but are formed in the subconscious into various kinds of complexes, which, due to their high energycharged, continue to influence, actually lead the Self. Complexes, according to K.G. Jung, “...tend to live their own life separately from our intentions” [8,48], “the complex with its inherent energy tends to form, as it were, a separate little personality.” [8,47] Since the individual is not only unique and isolated , and also a social being, then his psyche is not only an individual, but also a collective phenomenon. Collective consciousness is formed thanks to another person in the process of upbringing, education and interaction. This is the set of rules, roles, attitudes, values ​​that a person learns and acquires in the process of socialization. It is they who form the social, collective consciousness characteristic of a given place and time. This social level of the psyche determines the place of the individual in a specific historical formation, in a specific historical time and space. Collective consciousness is an image of what a person should be from the point of view of society and how he should live in it. C. G. Jung, in particular, noted that upon closer examination, one can only be surprised how much of our so-called individual psychology is actually collective [8]. The form of manifestation of social consciousness is meanings - knowledge about the world, refracted through collective perception. Although this is a level of consciousness, it is a level of shared, borrowed knowledge, mostly not personally experienced by the Self, but accepted, learned by it on faith. Consequently, the content of collective consciousness is phantom. Phantoms are ideas, knowledge taken on faith, not critically comprehended, not verified by personal experience, not experienced, acquired unconsciously, but influencing the entire life activity of a person. Phantoms are diverse and relate to different aspects of life (social, professional, family roles, etc.) and most often appear in the form of generalized knowledge (the earth is round), or ideas (all men...), or obligations (a good wife should...). Phantoms of consciousness have the following properties: 1) they are not experienced or identified by the person himself, he is immersed in them; 2) without a specially organized situation, the person himself is not aware of phantoms and does not treat them as phantoms. Such a situation regarding the awareness of phantoms requires a new look at already known knowledge; 3) A phantom can exist for both a short and a long time, but in general it is quite stable. The lifespan of a phantom is not limited. Thus, phantoms of consciousness are ideas, images, knowledge, ideas that organize a person’s consciousness, which structure, organize his inner world, are included in the content of the image of the world and the image of the self. Individual consciousness manifests itself in the form of personal meanings - contents knowledge personally experienced by the Self, that is, knowledge for the Self. One of the indicators of the existence of individual consciousness is the presence of reflection - the ability of consciousness to highlight its Self and relate to it. With this distinction, I am able to be critical of my actions, actions, relationships and evaluate them, as well as influence and manage them. Isolation of the Self is an indicator of individual consciousness. According to K.G. Jung, the Self is the subject, the center of consciousness and its condition. An analysis of the works of humanistically oriented researchers (A. Maslow, K. Rogers, E. Fromm, R. May, D. Bugental, I. Yalom) shows that the main qualities of individual consciousness are awareness, freedom and responsibility. The presence of these qualities allows us to talk about the possibility of choice as I - deterministic activity. Summarizing the above, we can imagine the structure of mental reality in the following form: Levels of mental reality Forms of manifestation Properties Individual consciousness Personal experience, Activity, I = I I as I reflected in personal awareness, Identification with the Self in the sense of responsibility Collective consciousness Social experience, Dependence on the Self = Self reflected in meanings, social Self = social consciousness phantoms of consciousnessstereotypesIndividual unconscious Individual Dependence on I = I complexes of individual I = individual unconscious complexes Collective unconscious Archetypes Dependence on I = I collective I I = collective unconscious complexes As can be seen from the table presented, in all of the listed options, with the exception of the first, the I does not have its own internal activity, it is dependent on social ideas, individual complexes, collective archetypes and, therefore, is not capable of autonomous choice. The situation of a forced, dependent choice is not realized by a person due to the unconscious nature of its determinants, their non-inclusion in the field of consciousness. In this regard, all attempts to appeal to this fact (lack of one’s own choice), as a rule, meet resistance. Any attempt from the outside to change the established picture of the world and one’s self-image, as a rule, triggers a complex system of psychological defenses. Let us consider in more detail the area of ​​individual consciousness, since only this substance is capable of carrying out its own activity, that is, choice. The area of ​​individual consciousness is the human Self, which is the center of the field of consciousness. The I is both the content of individual consciousness and its condition. What properties must the I have in order to be capable of choice, to be the “master” of my own choice? It can be assumed that choice is possible only on the basis of awareness of one’s own identity, that is, self-identity or self-identity. Self-identity will be understood as the process of a person experiencing his Self as belonging to him [4]. This understanding of self-identity is based on the ideas of considering this phenomenon in the existential-humanistic concept (A. Maslow, R. May, J. Bugental, etc.). For example, J. Bugental talks about internal, genuine, procedural identity, contrasting it with external identity, formed in society and having rigidity [1]. This kind of internal identity is formed as a result of personal and spiritual growth, as a result of internal awareness, internal listening and is characterized by it as a process. “If I want to experience my life in its entirety,” writes J. Bugental in his book “The Science of Being Alive,” “I must experience it at the center - I need to feel my Self. This is what internal awareness is. This is the experience of one’s Self” [1,24]. A. Maslow also paid attention to a person’s internal awareness of his unique existence [4]. A. Watson spoke about “inner vision” and about the “true I”, which is different from the personality. R. Laing writes about identity-for-others and identity-for-oneself [2]. Self-identity is the unit of a person’s experience of his Self as belonging to himself, and acts as one of the manifestations of the content of mental life, making it possible to highlight his own Self, its non-identity with another. Self-identity, in our opinion, is a dynamic, integral formation that can embrace mental life as a whole, and, perhaps, act as a criterion for the presence of mental life [4]. So, in particular, J. Bugental writes about this: “I feel most alive when I am open to all the diversity of my inner life... I am most alive when I can allow myself to experience, truly realize all this diversity and even truly to feel and express one’s integrity” [1.25] At a general level, self-identity appears as the experience of identity with oneself (I = I), acceptance of oneself as a given. This holistic, integral formation consists of private experiences and manifests itself in a variety of forms (self-concept, self-esteem, self-awareness, etc.), which allow us to see this phenomenon from different sides. Self-identity is fully represented in the concept of life, in the form of experiencing one’s responsibility for it [4]. Before defining the content andphenomenology of the identified Self, let us dwell on its structure. The analysis [4] made it possible to identify the following structural elements in the structure of the Self: Ego, a generalized personification, non-Self. Ego is initially given, arises and manifests itself for others, through a collision with the non-Self; Not-Self - is formed thanks to the Other, through a collision with the Other; A generalized personification is a generalized image of a person, typical of a particular culture. Each of the identified substances may have a different degree of differentiation. So, for example, the substance of the non-Self can be located on a continuum from the complete non-selection of the Other in the structure of the Self, to a high degree of its isolation and structure - one’s own, someone else’s, close, etc. The same can be said about the other structural components of the Self. The presence of structure in the Self and the differentiation of its structural components is determined by one of the qualities of the Self - its intermittency, adynamicity. Another quality of the Self is the degree of mobility, dynamic connections between the structural components, which allows you to experience the Self as a continuous, dynamic integrity. Depending on the above properties, the process of functioning of the Self can be either active, coming from the Self, in which the framework or boundaries of the Self are set and maintained from within, by the Self itself, and passively, directed towards the Self, where the boundaries of the Self are set and maintained due to external influence. In the first case, the Self actively, consciously chooses the methods and forms of its functioning and interaction with the world, in the second, the Self passively, unconsciously, uncritically perceives imposed forms of activity. The identified Self is characterized by a number of contradictory properties: discontinuity and continuity, integrity and structure, dynamism and static. Thanks to the presence of these contradictory properties, a person is able to experience himself as changing, but at the same time remaining himself. The existence of identified contradictions in the identified Self leads to the fact that such a Self constantly makes choices and clarifies its boundaries, which is reflected in the presence of an internal dialogue, or the dialogical nature of the Self, manifested in reflection. Consequently, reflection can act as one of the criteria for the identified Self. Thus, our theoretical analysis allowed us to identify the following properties of the identified Self: - the presence of structural components within the Self; - their differentiation (cognitive complexity); - the presence of contradictions between them; - mobility of the boundaries of the Self. The phenomenology of the identified Self can be described as follows: “I experience myself as the source of my strengths, my desires and needs. I build myself, I create myself. I am responsible for everything that happens to me, and I do not justify it with circumstances. I am not dependent on circumstances and other people, and I myself am the master of my life, its director. I am aware of my thoughts, feelings, actions and consciously make my choices. I accept myself” [4]. A person with an identified “I” consciously, freely and responsibly manages his life activities, has, according to A.Sh. Tkhostov quality of “authorship” [6]. We find a similar point of view in Sartre. Defining responsibility as a personal quality, he writes that being responsible means “being an author.” “Increasing freedom,” according to N. McWilliams, “stems from the ability to choose and master behavior that was previously automatic; self-acceptance comes from a person’s awareness of the fact how he acquired his special combination of tendencies” [3,195]. We consider the identified Self as a variant of normal personal development. Accordingly, variants of deviation from the norm can be represented as: - failure to identify the structural components of the Self (syncretism); - lack of differentiation of structural components (cognitive simplicity); - identification of the Self with one of the components; - rigidity of the boundaries of the Self. The unidentified Self can be represented as rigid, or excessively labile, situational. His boundaries, activity and experiences are determined not by himself, but by», 1994