КОНЦЕПЦІЯ РОЗЩЕПЛЕННЯ СВІДОМОСТІ У ПСИХОАНАЛІЗІ ТА НАСЛІДКИ ЇЇ ЗАСТОСУВАННЯ ДЛЯ СОЦІАЛЬНОГО ПІЗНАННЯ
Authors: Шевченко З. В. 
Published: December 2019

The concept of the split of consciousness in psychoanalysis plays a double role in the formation of an understanding of the situation of multiple social identities. First, the split of consciousness can be overcome only through a conscious approach to the theme of the Other, that is, to a communicative perspective. This problem can be largely explained to the subject by analyzing the structures of the language as those that determine the possibilities of communication. Here it turns out the principle splitting of the subject, which gives an understanding of the mechanism of the functioning of multiple social identities. Secondly, the appeal to the theoretical possibilities of psychoanalysis proves the impossibility of satisfactory social knowledge of the phenomenon of multiple social identity within the framework of psychoanalysis, since psychoanalysis does not go beyond the paradigm of the subject, and therefore can not be fully reinterpreted on communicative principles. At the same time, the concept of Jacques Lacan, considering interaction with another in terms of fantasy of desire, points to certain limits of the most communicative paradigm, which is never able to fully overcome the split of subject, but rather encourages and produces it. In this aspect, social communication acts as one of the main causes of the emergence, reproduction and development of multiple social identities. The more complex and more varied means of social communication are, the greater the need for multiple social identities is. One of the most important achievements of Sigmund Freud's theory from the point of view of philosophy is the discovery of the phenomenon of the structure of consciousness, or rather the assertion of the thesis on the fundamental structuring of consciousness. Subsequently, in the psychoanalysis, this thesis gradually transforms into a position on the splitting of human subjectivity into a normal, rather than a pathological phenomenon – primarily in the works of Jacques Lacan. For social cognition, this has had multiple consequences – both in relation to its subject, methods, and with regard to the goals and means of achieving them. In particular, thanks to the concept of splitting subjectivity it became possible to better understand how a plural social identity functions at the level of consciousness. The concept of the split of consciousness in psychoanalysis plays a double role in the formation of an understanding of the situation of multiple social identities. First, the split of consciousness can be overcome only through a conscious approach to the theme of the Other, that is, to a communicative perspective. This problem can be largely explained to the subject by analyzing the structures of the language as those that determine the possibilities of communication. Here it turns out the principle splitting of the subject, which gives an understanding of the mechanism of the functioning of multiple social identities. Secondly, the appeal to the theoretical possibilities of psychoanalysis proves the impossibility of satisfactory social knowledge of the phenomenon of multiple social identity within the framework of psychoanalysis, since psychoanalysis does not go beyond the paradigm of the subject, and therefore can not be fully reinterpreted on communicative principles. At the same time, the concept of Lacan, considering interaction with another in terms of fantasy of desire, points to certain limits of the most communicative paradigm, which is never able to fully overcome the split of subject, but rather encourages and produces it. In this aspect, social communication acts as one of the main causes of the emergence, reproduction and development of multiple social identities. The more complex and more varied means of social communication are, the greater the need for multiple social identities is. The most obvious question of interaction with others in psychoanalysis appears in the aspect of the relationship between the psychoanalyst and his patient: the psychoanalyst pushes the patient to analyze his relationship with others to restore (albeit temporarily) the lost integrity of his consciousness, but the greatest communicative achievement of this therapy is not the establishment of patient communication with third parties, and establishing his agreement with the psychoanalyst himself. If in Lacan's earlier writings it is still possible to find a research approach oriented on the theme of recognition, further Lacan is looking for a structuralist explanation for the success of social communication, that is, it is ensured not by the coincidence of the wishes of the communicants, but by the presence of an anonymous semantic structure presented in the language that enables mutual recognition. At the same time, the language appears as a wall that separates people from one another. Lacan reduces the recognition to its symbolic manifestations in the language, and considers language as a characteristic that enables to reveal the split of the individual in opposition to the unity of thinking, and not the unity of the language community, Lacan does not go beyond the subject in the sphere of the intersubjectivity, but shows the need to overcome the desire as fundamentally impossible as imagination. After all, the achievement of one desire does not bring pleasure, but only produces a new desire, therefore, the subject wanted not something specific, namely desire. Therefore, all the focus on the other manifests itself in Lacan, eventually focusing on itself, the view becomes mirror. And interaction with the Other acquires a symbolic significance.