ОСНОВНЫЕ РЕЖИМЫ АКТИВНОСТИ ДОМИНИРУЮЩЕЙ КОГНИТИВНО-ПРАГМАТИЧЕСКОЙ ПРОГРАММЫ И ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЕ СОЗНАНИЕ ЛИЧНОСТИ (НА МАТЕРИАЛЕ КИНОТЕКСТА «ХОЛОДНОЕ ЛЕТО ПЯТЬДЕСЯТ ТРЕТЬЕГО»)

Abstract

The purpose of the article is to study the conceptual-semantic core of the film construct “The Cold Summer of 1953” carried out as part of the author's metadisciplinary methodology – the theory of modeling cognitive-pragmatic programs (CPP). CPP is a supporting system of cognitive-pragmatic sets that can have both a personal and a superpersonal character. The article solves the problems of deciphering the multidimensional impact of the dominant “superpersonal” CPP on the consciousness and behavior of its carriers, since the basic party-ideological CPP is deeply rooted in the minds of both government officials and political prisoners; moreover, the power system also turns the representatives of criminal environment into the carriers of a specific criminal projection of the basic CPP. The main results of the study: film construct unfolds before us a panorama of the mythological recoding of the consciousness of CPP carriers, while the ethical category of duty, which is fundamental for self-identification of a person, suffers the most profound recoding. “The Duty” here is a destructive and manipulative instrument for controlling the CPP over the consciousness of its carriers. Confident that he decides by himself who he is (level of self-identification), what is his goal (level of goal-setting) and what is the path to it (level of modeling of an instrumental-operational strategy), the CPP carrier does not / fully does not recognize the substitution. In fact, the CPP controls it: a) the goal of the program is identified with the goal of the CPP carrier; b) the CPP carrier does not think of itself separately from the program; c) the destructive strategy of the CPP is perceived by the subject as its own. Studying the three basic regimes of the destructive activity of the ideological CPP, we come to the following conclusions: 1) In the “conditional passivity” mode of the CPP, its carrier retains a significant degree of internal freedom, not allowing the program to exercise full control. 2) The “Active-passive” mode of the CPP makes a substitution: the program carrier, being in the full sense of his personal freedom, becomes a “machine of generation” of senseless pseudo-ideologized conflict situations and a “machine of reproduction” of “alien” automated, reflex-impulse reactions. 3) Under the conditions of the “active-destructive” CPP regime, the “pseudodialogue” is no longer entered by “living” people, but by different options (“tools”, “mechanisms”) of the dominant program. That is why the “dialogue” of programs turns into an endless, automated, one-sided, impersonal process of “exchanging” orders.