Geum.ru

Программа 68-ой научно-практической конференции студентов, магистрантов и аспирантов белорусского

Вид материалаПрограмма

Содержание


Грамович. А., студ. 4 к. ЛСВ
Аскари А.С., студ. 3 к. ЛСВ
Секция «Библия и мировая культура»
Константинова А. К., студ. 5 к. БГУ
Подобный материал:
1   ...   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   ...   25


Conformity is a subject that psychologists have been investigating for almost half a century. Some of them think that this is some kind of a curse which we have to combat by all means, but others feel easier about it and prefer to investigate this phenomenon as something inevitable and immortal, trying to find out the reasons of it and situations when it can occur. So, let’s start with the definition of conformity.


According to the Oxford dictionary of social sciences, conformity is the tendency to make one's actions comply with prevailing norms, irrespective of one's personal beliefs. In 1935 Muzafer Sherif, a famous Turkish social psychologist, who worked at Oklahoma University, the USA, was one of the first to conduct a classic study of conformity. Sherif put subjects in a dark room and told them to watch a pinpoint of light and report how far it moved. Psychologists had previously discovered that a small, unmoving light in a dark room often appeared to be moving. This was labelled the autokinetic effect. First Sherif studied how subjects reacted to the autokinetic effect when they were in a room by themselves. He found that they soon established their own individual norms for the judgment—usually 2 to 6 inches. In the next phase of the experiment, groups of subjects were put in the dark room, 2 or 3 at a time, and asked to agree on a judgment. Now Sherif noted a tendency to compromise. People who usually made an estimate like 6 inches or 2 inches soon made their judgments to like 4 inches. Sherif's subjects were not aware of this social influence. When Sherif asked subjects directly, "Were you influenced by the judgments of other persons during the experiments," most denied it. But they had increased their conformity to group norms, anyway.

In 1951 another famous psychologist Solomon Asch, an American Gestalt psychologist and pioneer in social psychology, also held an interesting experiment on conformity. For the experiment, eight ссылка скрыта were seated around a table, with the seating plan carefully constructed to prevent any suspicion. Only one participant was actually a genuine subject for the experiment, the rest being carefully tutored to give certain pre-selected responses. The construction was simple; each participant, in turn, was asked to answer a series of questions, such as which line matched the reference line. The participants gave a variety of answers, at first correct, to avoid arousing suspicion in the subject, but then with some incorrect responses added. This would allow Asch to determine how the answers of the subject would change with the added influence of peer pressure. The ссылка скрыта results were unexpected and showed that peer pressure could have a measurable influence on the answers given. When surrounded by people giving an incorrect answer, over one third of the subjects also voiced an incorrect opinion. There have been a number of criticisms of Asch’s experiments; the subjects were all young males. More mature people have had enough experience of life, and more mental strength; they are more likely to hold true to their convictions. But anyway, the results were really striking.

Later, in 2005 Gregory Berns, a distinguished American neuroeconomist, held a similar experiment as Asch. For his experiment he used 2 3D objects and asked 32 subjects whether they match or not. As in Asch’s experiment the majority of the group was confederates who were told to give pre-selected numbers. It could seem amazing but the results were almost the same as in Asch’s experiment, but Berns discovered that if conformity occurred at the level of perception the occipital brain area was expected to show activity, and if it occurred at the level of action or judgement Orbitofrontal Cortex was expected to show activity.

It should be pointed out that in general there are LOTS of human mechanisms that can work for or against us. Clearly, conformity has some advantages. It can give the society a convenient structure, predictability and can also create some helpful conventions. But conformity starts to be against us when we become tyrannised by the group opinion in areas, where this opinion shouldn’t be the main for us. We can suddenly feel the loss of authentic self for no good reason. People, who can actually resist the public opinion and have their own point of view, form the minority, who struggle for freedom of mind and independence. But the paradox is that the opinion of that minority can be pressing either. So, everything starts from the beginning.

An interesting experiment showed that, for example, from a group of 10 people who say that their opinion is X, usually 1/3 has the opinion A. But they keep their point of view to themselves being afraid of social penalties, and so, they work for the statistics of the majority. But can you imagine how the social landscape could have changed if that minority wasn’t afraid? Many people try to show that they’re against conformity, they read a lot of “just do it” books, listen to auto trainings. But unfortunately, in fact, they don’t DO anything, they don’t change their behaviour. Also, the fear of disappointing people can play a great role and prevent us from free expression of our feelings, especially if those people are from a group that is very close to us.

I’d like to underline that sometimes we want to prevent confusion, we don’t want to be laughed at or seem antisocial, but I beg of you: let’s risk being more fully ourselves. Maybe we’ll like THIS more!


2 место:

Virginia Woolf’s Concept of Feminism


Грамович. А., студ. 4 к. ЛСВ,

научный руководитель — Дмитриева Э. А., ст. преподаватель


A profound and insightful statement on women and fiction, Virginia Woolf’s extended essay “A Room of One’s Own” has been repeatedly reviewed and analyzed since its first publication in 1929. Since then, critics often discuss the feminist aspect of Woolf’s essay in interestingly different ways. Some of them (like A. Bennett) state that Woolf’s essay is not a feminist work, reject the idea that Woolf’s discussion of women and fiction may lean towards politics, and reduce the essay’s scope to a collection of musings on women and fiction.

Nevertheless, the majority responds to “A Room of One’s Own” in the opposite way: they claim that Woolf’s work is feminist, and Woolf’s feminism emphasizes not only women and their relationship to fiction, but all people of genius who have not had an opportunity to use it because of their lack of money and privacy. Virginia Woolf’s own intention in writing the essay may have actually been to create a work that lay somewhere in between these two extremes.

Woolf repeatedly insists upon the necessity of an inheritance that requires no obligations and of the privacy of one's own room for the promotion of creative genius. She gives a historical argument that lack of money and privacy has prevented women from writing with genius in the past. Without money, women are slavishly dependent on men; without privacy, constant interruptions block their creativity. Freedom of thought is hampered as women consume themselves with thoughts of gender. They write out of anger or insecurity, and such emotions make them think about themselves rather than about their subjects. Aphra Behn is the first female writer to earn her own money from writing. She paved the way for 19th-century novelists like Jane Austen who were able to write despite the lack of privacy in their family sitting-rooms. Woolf believes that contemporary female writers still generally operate out of anger or insecurity, but that in the future, with money and privacy, their minds will be freed and their genius will blossom.

Woolf adapts Romantic poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge's idea that the "androgynous" mind is a pure vessel for thought that inspires the most objective and creative relationship with reality. Woolf does not view androgyny as asexual, but rather as a union of male and female minds, which she believes are different. She encourages this differentiation but sees their fusion as a necessity; both genders have a blind spot about their own and the opposite sex, and are dependent on each other to flesh out an accurate portrayal of humanity (she also contends that the sexes are dependent on each other to renew creative power). For instance, Woolf believes a female writer must find a sentence for womanly needs. Ultimately, the androgynous mind, like Shakespeare's, is unconcerned with its owner's petty grievances; it rises beyond and filters out its personality as its genius shines incandescently upon the world.

Woolf posits that men historically belittle women as a means of asserting their own superiority. In her metaphor of a looking-glass relationship, men, threatened by the thought of losing their power, reduce women to enlarge themselves. However, just as women's writing suffers from the emotions of anger and fear, men's writing suffers from this aggression. The men the narrator reviews do not write "dispassionate," detached arguments that would otherwise convince the reader, but expose their own prejudices. In the end, their writing revolves around them rather than around their subject. Woolf points out that war is a greater societal byproduct of this consuming aggression and defensiveness.

Much of "A Room of One's Own" is dedicated to an analysis of the patriarchal English society that has limited women's opportunity. Woolf reflects upon how men, the only gender allowed to keep their own money, have historically fed resources back into the universities and like institutions that helped them gain power in the first place; in contrast, the women's university the narrator stays at had to scrap together funds when it was chartered. Woolf compares the effect of the relative wealth of the male and female universities: the luxurious lunch at the men's college provokes pleasant intellectual banter, while the mediocre dinner at the female college hampers thought. Women are not even allowed in the library at the men's college without special permission, or to cross the lawn.

Woolf stretches back to Elizabethan times to give a fictional-historical example of sexism: Judith Shakespeare, imagined sister of William, leads a tragic life of unrealized genius as society scorns her attempts to make something of her brilliant mind. Woolf traces such obstacles against women writers through the modern day; beyond her main treatment of money and privacy, she touches upon topics such as the masculine derogation of female books, subjects, and prose style.

• Judith was as adventurous, as imaginative, as bright to see the world as William was. But she was not sent to school.

• While William learns, Judith is chastised by her parents should she happen to pick up a book, as she is inevitably abandoning some household chore to which she could be attending.

• Judith is betrothed, and when she does not want to marry, she is beaten and then shamed into marriage by her father.

• While Shakespeare establishes himself, Judith is trapped by the confines of the expectations of women.

• Judith kills herself, and her genius goes unexpressed, while Shakespeare lives on and establishes his legacy.

Thus, Virginia Woolf points out fundamental difference between two genders: men have always been free to do what they want, while women lacked this opportunity due to their dependence from men and institutions established and ruled by men. Though the essay does not contain any sharp criticism of modern society, “A Room of One’s Own” managed to become an inspiration for the global movement, which feminism has become in the 20th century.


3 место:

Phenomenon of Tolkienism


Аскари А.С., студ. 3 к. ЛСВ,

научный руководитель – Дмитриева Э.А., старший преподаватель


Many people have read books and a lot of among those who have are fascinated by J. R. R. Tolkien. And now there appeared such curious a phenomenon as Tolkienism.

Tolkienists are members of Tolkien Fandom, an international, informal community of fans of J. R. R. Tolkien’s works. This Fandom includes many societies and clubs all over the world. One of the first, the Tolkien Society, was founded in 1969 in the UK.

A tolkienist is someone who studies J. R. R. Tolkien’s works. These studies are called tolkienology, which include different researches:
  • Reconstruction of history of the Middle-earth;
  • Genealogies of creatures of the Middle-earth;
  • Tolkienian linguistics: researches of the languages, that Tolkien designed for the Middle-earth, and their writing systems;
  • Astronomic and geographical descriptions in the books;
  • Morality issues;
  • Tolkiennymy – etymology of names;
  • Strategies of wars and battles;
  • Tolkien’s calendars.

One of Tolkien’s fans has given on his web-site an explanation of tolkienism, which gives a full understanding of the phenomenon: “Tolkienism is a spiritual path that is based on the writings of the Silent Prophet – J. R. R. Tolkien. We acknowledge the existence of beings that no longer dwell on this planet, such as elves, dwarves, hobbits, etc. We can find in ourselves strength to face the future, or to foresee it if we are so gifted. It is the long forgotten strength of our ancestors, whoever they may be, that dwelt in the Middle-earth, when Men were noble and had not yet been corrupted. Many following this path are other kin; some are humans who have heard the words of the Silent Prophet and known, without doubt that his words were true. I explore this as a spiritual path and history that has been long-forgotten.”

The author of this explanation could be called a “radical” tolkienist. But is this kind of radicalism dangerous for the society? I think it is not. Tolkienists are not a terroristic group; they are a peaceful subculture, which includes people of the same interests. They gather together, take part in role playing games based on Tolkien’s books. These games are something like improvised theater plays, but a person does not have to learn his role by heart. He or she has a spontaneous role, which is not limited by a scenario. It gives every player a chance to unleash his imagination, to feel the atmosphere of another world and for some hours to become a part of it.

Still “radical” tolkienism can cause some problems in person’s family and in modern society. There were and still are some attempts to create a religious cult based on Tolkien’s books. Some “radical” tolkienists tried to found Temples of Gods of the Middle-earth in many countries. Nevertheless, if it is a spiritual way and if they do not have specific features of a destructive sect, it is their right to believe in whatever they want.

All people are similar in their beliefs. They believe in something that exists now only in the farthest depths of their memories. They believe that there is more than what there appears to be. Tolkienism, although like anything can be combined with a variety of other paths, is a separate path itself. One does not have to have Christian, Pagan or any other specific background to be a tolkienist. Although Tolkien was a Christian many of his influences came from traditional, pagan and other sources like folktales. Some may also call Tolkienists those who are eccentric fans of his books.

The most pressing problem is misunderstanding. Many people, especially parents, do not understand what tolkienism is. They do not understand why their children take part in role playing games. It seems and sounds very strange to them. On the other hand, children do not try to explain what they are busy with. Many of them begin to live in the world of their game. It leads to the generation gap becoming wider. I think, the reason of all these problems is not in tolkienism, it is in human nature. Many people do not understand the limits and go beyond all bounds.

It is quite apparent that many tolkienists are gifted people, who create wonderful verses, stories and paintings. There are lots of good singers among them. Still their creativity is mostly known only to other tolkienists. But everyone should understand that creativity is necessary only there, where it is interesting to people. Nevertheless, some creations of Tolkien’s fans are well-known. For example, rock-opera “Finrod-Song”, based on “The Silmarillion”, was composed, written and staged by Russian tolkienists. We also can mention two movies, “The Hunt for Gollum” and “Born of Hope”, which were produced by Tolkien’s fans in the UK.

In conclusion I would like to mention “Seven Stages of Tolkienism”:
  1. I’ve read Tolkien’s books, I like them.
  2. You are crazy about Tolkien? Make someone be crazy about him too!
  3. My nationality is an elf.
  4. Look at my passport! I am Gendalf the Grey!
  5. Do not laugh at me! I saw a hobbit in our forest yesterday! I swear!
  6. I have been in the Middle-earth! I have seen all the events!
  7. Tolkien was not right. Listen attentively, I’ll tell you how it was…

And may I ask you: what is your stage of tolkienism?

Many of us have heard such words like Shakespearian, Pushkinist and so on. These words refer to people who study works and language of different great writers and poets. I am sure, Tolkien is one of the most prominent writers of the 20th century, so people should not think that Tolkienists (those who study his books) are strange and dangerous for our society.


Секция «Библия и мировая культура»


1 место:


Мотив тщетных поисков смысла бытия в поэме Т. С. Элиота

«Бесплодная земля»


Константинова А. К., студ. 5 к. БГУ,

научный руководитель Синило Г. В., доцент.


Мотив тщетных поисков смысла бытия – один из главных мотивов поэмы Т.С. Элиота «Бесплодная земля». Он связан прежде всего со средневековой легендой о Короле-рыбаке, вынужденном искать Грааль, чтобы спасти себя и свою землю от бесплодия. Поскольку главным концептом легенды является земля, необходимо обратиться к анализу топоса земли в поэме Элиота. Образ бесплодной земли создается посредством использования синонимичных в контексте произведения слов и выражений. К ним относятся: stone (камень), rubbish (мусор), dust (пыль, прах, тлен), mountains (горы), rocks (скалы), road (дорога, путь), sand (песок), ruins (развалины, руины).

Наибольшее количество метафор земли содержится в пятой части поэмы – “What the Thunder Said”, соответствующей последнему этапу поисков Грааля. Все метафоры земли, содержащиеся в этой части, призваны подчеркнуть бессмысленность и тщетность поисков воды как средства, утоляющего духовную жажду. В последней части произведения находим противопоставление двух начал: сухого как бездуховного, обреченного, и влажного как духовного, спасительного. Такое противопоставление противоречиво: вода, источник есть традиционный библейский символ духовных знаний, духовного наполнения, но и камень символизирует христианскую церковь, т.е. духовные ценности. По А. А. Аствацатурову, такая дихотомия символов обусловлена разрывом представлений о Боге в сознании человека [1, с. 8]. Чтобы спастись, необходимо обрести Бога в душе. Тщетность человеческих усилий на этом пути подчеркивается во фрагменте, интерпретирующем евангельский сюжет о путешествии двух учеников Иисуса Христа. Ученики встречают Иисуса, но не узнают его. Это говорит о тщетности духовных скитаний лирического героя, о тщетности попыток вернуть содержание своей опустошенной душе, превратившейся в бесплодную землю. Из анализа духовного пути лирического героя следует, что в поэме мотив тщетных поисков реализуется в двух переплетающихся планах: первый связан с легендой о Граале, второй – это современный автору Лондон, жители которого утратили состояние духовной целостности и постоянно ощущают надорванность бытия.

В завершающем произведение фрагменте представлен внешне бессвязный ряд образов, отсылающих к произведениям разных культурных эпох: образ Короля-Рыбака, образ падающего Лондонского моста, образ разрушенной башни и др. Образ разрушенной башни символизирует гибель культуры, разрыв с традицией и, несомненно, отсылает в библейской притче о Вавилонской башне. Согласно Элиоту, нельзя разделять культуру отдельной личности, культуру отдельного социального слоя и культуру всего общества [2, с. 158]. В поэме Элиот символически отражает состояние культуры в целом, исходя из собственного определения. Согласно поэту, все три аспекта культуры искажены: чувственное преобладает над духовным. Культура гибнет по причине утраты связи с традицией, представляющей собой духовные ценности. Разрыв связи с культурами прошлого, с традицией, духовную пустоту символизирует ряд приведенных выше образов.

Финальные слова «Datta, Dayadhvam, Damyata // Shantih shantih shantih» являются ключом к решению проблемы духовной пустоты. Они означает последовательно «дай», «сочувствуй», «владей собой». Это три элемента, необходимых для человеческой жизни. «Shantih shantih shantih» переводится с санскрита как «мир, который превыше всякого ума» [3, с. 76]. В нашей интерпретации это мир, подчиняющийся законам Бога, которые человек не способен понять до конца, однако смысл его существования в подчинении этим законам, в любви к Богу. Данный фрагмент соотносится с финалом Книги Экклесиаста.

Выводы: мотив тщетных поисков в поэме Элиота «Бесплодная земля» реализуется через образ земли, который представлен рядом метафор (waste land, dead land, stony rubbish, и др.). Бесплодная земля символизирует гибнущую культуру, состояние смерти-в-жизни (преобладания чувственного над духовным). Лирический герой тщетно пытается найти спасение на трех уровнях: на уровне отдельной личности, на уровне отдельных социальных слоев, на уровне целого общества. Бесплодная земля – внутренний мир каждого отдельного человека и состояние всего человечества. В итоге лирический герой получает формулу избавления (Datta, Dayadhvam, Damyata, Shantih shantih shantih), однако в тексте не указано, понимает ли он суть этого откровения, т.е. его духовные поиски тщетны. Мотив тщеты в произведении подчеркивает жизненную необходимость следования определенным этическим установкам, без которых невозможно дальнейшее развитие личности, культуры и цивилизации.