What is intimacy and how does it develop? What is intimacy and what is it eaten with

... The feeling of intimacy, like the feeling of happiness, is not constant 24 hours a day. There are minor quarrels and troubles, but nevertheless, the GENERAL perception, or, let's say, the "general line" :), still gives a stable feeling of "closeness or happiness, or one or the other together."

Here again I recall the already known: "Often we did not notice happiness, it was like heaven, usually it is." It is possible that closeness is sometimes not felt the same way. Feels like its absence...

And starting a conversation about the "theory of psychological intimacy", I will offer readers to begin with the definition of such intimacy given by the famous psychotherapist Eric Berne. According to him, intimacy is "a game-free, sincere behavior of a person ... It usually does not lead to trouble unless some kind of game intervenes."

I will note right there that in Berne's understanding, a psychological game, as a rule, carries an element of deception, manipulation, competition (who will snatch the win?) Therefore, as a rule, there is no need for SUCH a game in closeness.

Here is a simple example: there is a mountain of dishes in the sink. And the tired wife came home and dreams of sitting in front of the TV or lying on the couch with a book ...
If she and her husband have an intimacy, it is enough for her to say "Honey, I'm tired, I'll wash the dishes later?"
The husband (depending on the circumstances) in this case may say something like this:
"Rest, dear, of course - it's okay, you'll wash later";
"It's nothing, I'll wash it myself";
or even "I've already washed it."
If there is no closeness between the spouses, the wife needs to "manipulate" her husband so that he gives out at least something similar to one of the three listed reactions. And then she starts some of the appropriate psychological games; and her "win" is just a temporary permission not to wash the dishes.
This, of course, is one of the examples. Maybe the easiest.

What else needs to be said about intimacy as the absence of psychological games?
- First of all, this is the absence (or, let's say, the gradual disappearance as intimacy arises ...) of precisely destructive games - that is, unpleasant for at least one partner.

After all, if there are manipulative games in a couple, especially destructive ones, then they are played so that one of the partners receives a “win”. And this means that, as a rule, the other person gets a loss. Which is bad for intimacy.
- Besides, you won't always have to win: sometimes your partner will also win, which means you will have to endure a loss. Which is also annoying.
- The presence of such opportunities, as it were, "does not allow you to relax", makes you always "keep ready to return the game" or keep track of the partner's game. Such living together soon becomes quite tiresome. That is, it turns out that you do not have confidence in your "partner in life" (as well as he does not trust you). And at least you don't feel "psychologically safe" in his presence...

Now let's try to give some clarifications.

Very often, a kind of "commodity-money relations" in the worst sense of the word: according to the principle "you - to me, I to you" become an illusion of proximity. Here, everything seems to be said directly and without ambiguity, but "the presence of a reciprocal need" of the second partner is by no means always taken into account. For example, one has a need to have "a little bit of personal life": mind you, this does not always mean copulative infidelity! Maybe a person needs space for the same "natural flirting that he does as he breathes", or in general for some kind of reflection alone with himself "about the benefits and futility of all things" … It doesn’t matter, the main thing is different: a person somehow wants to keep in the union a piece of his, as Dr. Levy says, “self.” And the second, therefore, objects to this and is almost even jealous of the first for his personal thoughts and needs for solitude … And often, offended, he appeals specifically to proximity: “We are almost native people, and you again…”

Here, alas, most often either the illusion of proximity, or a game of proximity. "I need this, so I let you do the SAME, and we will assume that the closeness between us is preserved and my need does not violate it." And in fact, it turns out that the second partner or partner does not need this "same" one, and therefore does not want to take it. But he needs something else, about which he cannot directly say or also does not want to, and prefers to perform his manipulations with his first spouse in order to warm him up ... and at least the same feeling of guilt. Which on his part may not be warmed up, because "he did everything he could."

Or another option - the spouse (a) does not take "the same" - even if he (she) may need it. He doesn’t take it precisely because he (she) somewhere deep down does not like that the partner (sha) will use HIS freedom: maybe the one who is “offered” sees in his (her) freedom a threat to the same " closeness"...

So it turns out, again, either self-deception or sheer manipulation.

This is actually because many people, entering into marriage, talk about their future family life precisely according to the principle “he will be mine” (or “she will be mine”). Pretty much just part of my body...

But in fact, having "the same rights to privacy" is not at all the main condition for "proximity as the absence of games."

A close person with whom you can communicate without manipulative games - perhaps this is someone who will understand your needs (I don’t even know what to emphasize - on the word "understand" or on the word "your" ...) Just like you will understand his (her) needs. Moreover, in "real" proximity, both can somehow "leave at least into themselves" somewhere, and most importantly, there is no need to come up with some kind of manipulation for this departure. Maybe you don't need to say anything at all...

Moreover, the result of recognizing each other's needs will not be the partner's manipulation of this knowledge, but mutual respect for each other's needs. And here it is not at all necessary to exchange "rights": maybe you need one, and your partner needs another. Of course, in particular. For common, global goals - perhaps also one of the necessary conditions for psychological intimacy: perhaps this is exactly that. what stimulates (or rather, inspires, perhaps) both of you to create this closeness ...

In addition, BOTH close partners are ready for some kind of compromise, and they do not need to force each other to go for them with the help of the same games. And here, first of all, there is a desire to "reduce intersecting transactions and intersecting interests" ...

Remember the above example: wife - "I'll do the dishes later, okay?" Strictly speaking, for intimacy, she already said a lot :) She lay down after dinner - that means she was tired, which means she CANNOT now. She wanted to voice it (to make sure that there was adequate feedback ...) - she voiced it, received the expected answer, and there was nothing further for the conflict to actually arise. This is provided that she has an understanding and, most importantly, a husband who respects her needs. Confident, in particular, that she went to rest really because she was tired (and would wash the dishes a little later), and not in order to play some kind of "Hunted Housewife" with him and force him to do the dishes himself - if he has at least such suspicions to a minimum, then, for the sake of preemptive aggression, he will give her a scolding “unfortunate lazybones, I’m here at work ...”, run into a response or some other subtle manipulation, and so on ...

By the way, more about the "necessary dose of personal life" in a psychologically close couple. It takes into account the needs of each side and finds an option for solving them - but again, because both benefit from the feeling of comfort in this pair, and therefore both minimal losses trying to achieve this mutual feeling. and perhaps, after some time - without further ado).

But the trouble is that most of our couples don’t have this particular benefit, and their understanding of intimacy on the basis of “that’s it, now you’re mine” implies exactly “exchange”: “Oh, you need to flirt. and I I'll flirt! Although I don't need it for anything and I'll get myself into continuous problems from this (to play the game "That's what you brought me to (a)" later. Or in other words: "Oh, you need to flirt - please, a I will never do this - so that I have a reason to play with you in an offended spouse (wife) and accuse you of being an egoist (ka) ", etc. ... That is, you see how it turns out: there is no desire both feel comfortable - there is a desire to "win" something at the expense of the other ... And if you want, people often have this "right to win at the expense of their spouse" and is called "intimacy" ... :(But in fact, intimacy, after all, is in the first place MUTUAL respect for individuality and mutual unwillingness to hurt each other.

Now about the other extreme: complete intimacy, which admiring journalists love to talk about so much, be it wrong :). Like, "they became so dear to each other that they completely grew together as souls," etc. In fact, this is very difficult, because a person always has at least his own unconscious and those needs that are formed "at his level." Especially bad. when, again, one seeks to "absorb the personality of the other" under the sauce of achieving intimacy ... This, again, is not closeness, but an illusion: when they seek to capture the partner's personality (option - the person himself seeks to give his partner his personality according to the principle "Now YOU answer for me "....) But still, at least a minimal, but a piece of "personality" should remain (although the dimensions of this necessary piece For different people are, of course, different). Must stay, if you like, just for the sake of feeling not absorption, but complete VOLUNTARY intimacy! "Yes, here I am, and you know about it, that I have my own needs, which sometimes manifest themselves - if they do not threaten US, then you do not attack them and accept them with me" ... Clearly, here the discussion can take a special direction - say, if the minor weakness of the spouse is communication in bed with other women, and the minor weakness of the wife is buying expensive things. Or vice versa:)

But again, I will clarify that "internal needs do not threaten US", and secondly, with the same need to "have fun intimately with other women or men" or when buying expensive jewelry, mobile phones, cars, etc. really close spouses BOTH play various games with others, both on the same side. And if this need stubbornly brings trouble to another, a compromise is sought in this direction as well. But again, it is sought together, without the formation of a sense of guilt and a game like "If it were not for you ...".

And one more thing: intimacy without manipulation is not straightforwardness in communication! These are completely different things...

It’s different here: just a person who is nearby understands your behavioral markers, often without words at all. Or at least, if you need something, you don't have to build bastions of excuses for it, and also report EVERYTHING real reasons of your desire. Another thing is that you are already evaluating - can this desire be satisfied with a reasonable compromise?

Straightforwardness is not the antipode of the game! Direct communication can also be a component of many games ...

And it is clear that an attempt to "get into your heart and stay there" is not intimacy either. An attempt to pester "Tell me what you are thinking about now, we are close people" - also not intimacy! It's more of a "not a single thought out of my control" manipulation. Here the very concept of "proximity" flows into the concept of "full control" ...

And by the way: proximity implies precisely respect for needs, and not mutual destruction and not merging !!!

Here is the most primitive illustration.
Husband sat down to watch football.
Of course. he does not want his wife close to him to sit next to him and saw him for it.
What does he want? So that she would sit next to her and shout "goal"?
Not always. Sometimes he wants her to mind her own business and give him the opportunity to watch the match alone (or go to friends for this time). The main thing is that his need be understood and, if possible, not condemned. After all, she really threatens the family minimally.
And if a wife wants to watch some kind of "movie about love", she does not always want her husband to sit next to her and ask questions - maybe she wants to watch it alone. Just to let her do it and not scold her for it ...

Similarly, with any needs of any person: look at the stars, read a newspaper, listen to music, communicate with other people ...

It is clear that if a husband watches football instead of an important business meeting for the family, it is another matter. But if there is closeness between the spouses and it is global common goals - in this case husband will go to a meeting, but he won’t remember about football. But if there are no global goals, but there is a declaration of them, then the husband’s car will break down along the way, and the train will leave, etc.

And most importantly: as soon as between the spouses there is a need for control on the one hand, disobedience on the other and confrontation on both sides, it is already difficult to talk about intimacy. Continuous psychological games, and destructive.

I can offer you one more clarification regarding intimacy as a form of communication and its combination with activity. Let's just say - in order to be close people, again, it is not necessary to cook breakfast TOGETHER, glue wallpaper, write an article, etc. Proximity as a form of communication does not require constant being together almost by force! And it can easily happen that in one pair - really psychologically close! - one partner is sleeping and the other is preparing breakfast. And in the other, which is only illusory or “one-sidedly” close, both will certainly go to the kitchen together (to the point that they cut bread together with one knife), because if they are separated even for a moment, they will immediately lose their “sense of closeness”, in need of constant confirmation and evidence ... Sometimes such "proximity" is sarcastically called "the proximity of Siamese twins."

Of course, if really close people LIKE for the sake of entertainment sometimes cutting bread together with one knife - who forbids them? Especially if at the moment they like it and they are comfortable with it. But in "Siamese intimacy" such a constant stay together becomes painful over time and no longer confirms the feeling of intimacy, but refutes it, turning into the same manipulative mutual game.

And really close people go somewhere together, not because they MUST (because they call themselves close), but because they want it and they can afford it. If circumstances force them to do something one by one, this is not perceived as a tragedy, and does not threaten the feeling of intimacy ...

And by the way, for "real intimacy" it is really not at all necessary that partners have similar tastes and requests in EVERYTHING! They can be "partially complementary", and this "partiality" is enough for them. to, say, make a decision. to "adapt to each other further" (it is quite true that there are two more ways: to disperse, retaining pleasant memories, or to force intimacy, hurt each other and scatter with bad memories).

And even having created their proximity, they may well coincide in general, but have different tastes in details: one, for example, may love semolina (Picasso, jazz ...), and the other mayonnaise (Aivazovsky, country ...). And this will in no way be a cause for contention.

But what if one of the partners at certain points in their lives needs games for something?

Often I have to talk about one elderly storekeeper who tirelessly put her OWN, familiar order on the shelves with goods. She spared no effort rearranging everything anew "as it suits her", even when her shift ended and she went home for two days. It turned out that a woman of pre-retirement age was desperately afraid to seem unnecessary and strived so that at least in this warehouse NOTHING could be found without her ... This is how women often put things in order in the kitchen of a woman - so that a man, if he happens to poke his head to cook scrambled eggs for himself, would not find anything WITHOUT HER. Therefore, the products are in the most "illogical" places, and she answers all the questions of her husband: "But it's more convenient for me." Maybe she is sincere - she really is SO more comfortable. Only she herself can not understand - why. But as it is already clear - here there is an explicit "where are you good without me", etc. And closeness, alas, so far clearly does not even smell. If there were proximity, the products would be where it is convenient for both, since both have to cook; at least there was no such perception "he encroached on my territory", there would not be this competitive, protective component in behavior ... In other words (remember the conversation about games in general) - there would be no need to receive this hidden gain "I am more important than you", or it would be possible to get it, since it was impatient, in some other way: up to the point that voicing this desire - "If possible, will I be in charge in the kitchen?", Or even think together about why the wife could have such desire...

And perhaps I can offer you such a "recognition of the game": if somewhere in communication you stumble upon a stubborn illogicality, then most likely there is a game going on. Conscious or unconscious, it doesn't matter. Perhaps that is why psychological manipulative games are so widespread in our life that a person uses logic in his behavior much less often than it is commonly thought ...

Yes, here's what's important: any psychological intimacy does not imply a REFUSAL from games! Most likely, this is a "gradual care of uselessness" of these games from the communication of close people. For the formation of intimacy actually goes THROUGH games, but again - through constructive ones that do not cause pain, and carry a training load rather than a control-suppressive-manipulative one.

But even this - "gradual care of uselessness" - is also not entirely true. I prefer the expression "freedom from games" - that is, games in a close pair can be used "at will", and most likely for mutual pleasure. to exchange additional, specific, veiled strokes, etc. And not at all in order for one to "win" over the other. It is closeness that allows you to gradually give this gain to another "without a fight": "Do you want this? Please take it." Here, it is precisely the mutual desire to renounce mutual manipulations that is already felt by both as a kind of deception that peeps through and becomes important.

And if the game has to be broken, abandoned, and this hurts, then this person still needs the game as a manipulative or protective function, and you can’t take it away from him until you figure it out - and it’s clear that raping "let's figure it out" also useless, this readiness should be allowed to "ripen" - this is also the time from which the establishment of intimacy is formed ...

As for the share of games in the process of forming intimacy, I can offer the following idea: yes, games fade away over time (more precisely, freedom of games is gained), but in fact, in a close pair, games are becoming more and more, or something, "giveaway games": )

And most importantly - "training games, they are giveaways" can be in real proximity because, as again, I had to tell clients many times, proximity has no final! You can't say "I finished studying my partner, now we are close people and know everything about each other, now we have NO WHERE to study each other to get closer." As soon as a thick line was drawn under the "study of a partner" - a movement began in reverse side, discrepancy! Proximity is precisely the need to constantly listen to a partner, to constantly monitor his reactions, think about his (her) needs - after all, a person is changing ... And most importantly, it is not difficult, but rather interesting. That is why games between close people eventually carry only a learning function, cease to be "painfully manipulative" and gradually become a non-determining component of communication between close people (compared to other surrounding life).

Recently, I have been thinking a lot about how I feel and experience such a state as intimacy. When I say about someone "this is a person close to me" or "we have become close lately" - what movements are taking place in my soul, what meaning do I fill such words with? How do I establish close relationships, what hinders me in them, how scared I am of intimacy - it happens like that ... With psychological terms-definitions, it is often a disaster at all - it is very difficult to clearly and clearly outline what exactly we mean when we use this or that word. Intimacy is also difficult to articulate, but we use this word quite often, intimacy is what we strive for in a relationship. I'll try to rely on my own emotional response to this word.

Then suddenly a feeling of gratitude comes ... It is connected with the fact that with people with whom I can call close communication, I have a complicated history of relationships. A story of misunderstanding, conflicts, anger, resentment. Approaching, we are faced with the fact that we - with all the sympathy - are very different. And ways to establish contact - too.

I, in my rapprochement, are usually slow (sometimes even too much), cautious. I look for a long time. Someone is trying on a grand scale to overcome the entire distance, and then I can just shy away, get scared - there are too many feelings, more than I am ready to accept now. I also know people who stagger back and forth: today they are warm and open, and the very next day you feel like a stranger next to them, they move away, increase the distance. Someone is closed, but really wants others to try to penetrate the barrier ... What to do - each of us has our own experience of relationships with people.

And I feel gratitude because, despite the fact that we are very different, we were able to stay close. Proximity is about the distance between people in the first place, and not about similarity/similarity. Awareness of differences makes our presence next to each other much more valuable than if we were twins in terms of our psychological structure ... Thank you for knowing me not always from the best sides, you open up again and again and stay close ... And now I understand that our disputes, misunderstandings, difficulties, hard experience lived together - only brought us closer.

Trust… I risk talking about what really worries me. Or ask about what excites you in another. It can be clumsy and difficult (does anyone have the universally correct words for this case?) - but in closeness there is trust that allows you to take a step forward. At least I believe that they will listen to me - and not turn away. And it is important for me that they trust me too. And this trust can also be expressed in the fact that not only positive feelings are shared with me, but also anger at me (or I share it). In a relationship in which you can’t talk about any feelings, there is no intimacy, but dependence is born.

It is curious that all these experiences - tenderness, joy, gratitude, trust - they seem to be a little muffled. They are not brightly flashy, but soft tones that do not require the attention of other people.

Yes, there is still freedom. I can regulate the distance, I can move away, disappear for a while, and then come back again, and they won’t bombard me with reproaches, but simply say that they are glad to see me.

In general, if we put together all these experiences, then psychological intimacy for me is my attunement to another, and his attunement to me. It's "how are you?" followed by a desire to listen and respond. From a great distance, you can’t see the other, and you can’t hear.

Emotional intimacy is tricky. Translating "Intimacy" into Russian is another task. Because the direct and obvious translation is "intimacy". But in this word for most people there is an obvious pointer to sex. Therefore, they chose a slightly less obvious option - proximity.

Modern magazines constantly write that you have to be capable of intimacy, and this is absolutely true. Because for intimacy you need to respect "Privacy" - another word that is difficult to translate into Russian. If, again, you use the translator's false friend, you get "privacy".

And then intimacy is a coordinating dynamism, which is aimed at arousing sympathy, tenderness and devotion in a partner and thereby getting rid of two unpleasant feelings - anxiety and loneliness. Involves a close relationship between two people of more or less equal status. Each of them sees in the other an equal personality, and not just an object of pleasure.

If you try to simplify - proximity, this is such a thing when next to you is not just a person with a pretty face or a potential apartment without a mortgage, but someone important, significant, interesting and beautiful. Someone you respect and accept, and who respects and accepts you. Because it doesn't work one way.

Many girls declare this, but in fact, their inner anxiety in the company of a cold partner often leads to a dependent relationship.

I feel closeness best of all with old friends - with those with whom we have been together for many years, and I know that next to them I can be myself, tell something really important about myself, hug them, kiss them, hold their hands - and they will try to hear me, accept me, answer me the same.

Why do we talk about ability or inability? Because many people are not ready to empathize, open up, interact and trust. And there is no intimacy.

To go into intimacy, you need faith that it is possible.

Proximity- one of the most important foundations and characteristics of the positive pole of relations of the "-sympathy - antipathy" type, which determines the cause and at the same time the consequence of the established and relatively stable attraction relationships between people. The concept of "-proximity" -, in particular, is widely used in the works of E. -Erickson, who considers proximity as the ability of one person to take care of another, to share everything essential with him without fear of losing himself (V. -I. -Ovcharenko) . In socio-psychological terms, the concept of "-proximity" is practically the antonym of the concept of "-social distance"-. In fact, in the first case we are talking about the system of relationships and interpersonal mutual perception, built in the logic of identification and affection, and in the second - confrontation, a kind of interpersonal confrontation and alienation. Forms of manifestation of intimacy can be different both in psychological content and in the degree of severity, emotional richness. So, for example, the phenomenon of intra-group favoritism can also be considered in the logic of the manifestation of proximity. In informal companies, intimacy takes, as a rule, the forms of friendship and true friendship, and in the family - the form of kinship and love. The simplest methodological technique that allows fixing the psychological closeness between people can be considered a sociometric procedure, originally aimed at diagnosing relationships such as "sympathy - antipathy" -. At the same time, the psychological closeness between people in groups of different levels of development is far from the same grounds. Yes, in groups. low level psychological development(diffuse groups and associations), the decisive factor in the formation of specific relations of psychological closeness is interpersonal affection not related to the activity plan, but in groups high level psychological development "-friendly relations" - are largely mediated by the content, tasks and goals joint activities partners.

The problem of psychological proximity and social distancing of the subjects of interaction is clearly a key one in the framework of socio-psychological science. To one degree or another, almost all researchers working in the field of group psychology and social psychology of the individual, as well as social developmental psychology, in one way or another, touched upon this range of issues in a meaningful way. So, for example, exploring the process of identity formation, E. -Erickson came to the conclusion that it is the ability of an individual to establish forms of closeness with partners in interaction that are adequate to the situation is one of the main manifestations of a qualitative personal identity in social life. At the same time, in a critical, from the point of view of identity formation, adolescence the relationship at the level of identity - proximity is bilateral. In other words, at the stage of psychosocial moratorium, intimacy is not only a consequence, but also a condition full development personality.

According to E.-Erickson, "-the fact that many of our patients &ldquo-suffer disaster&rdquo--at an age that is more correctly considered pre-adult than post-adolescent, is due to the fact that often only an attempt to enter into intimate friendship and rivalry or sexual intimacy fully reveals the latent weakness of identity.

The correct &ldquo-docking&rdquo- with others is the result and a test of the strength of the image &ldquo-I&rdquo-. As the young man seeks as yet tentative forms of intimacy in friendship and rivalry, sexual play and love, in a dispute and gossip, he experiences a special tension, as if such a trial "docking" was turned to interpersonal unity, reaching the loss of identity and requiring the tension of internal reserves, caution in achievements. If the young man is unable to relieve this tension, he must "isolate" himself and engage (at best) only in stereotyped and formalized interpersonal relationships, or he may, through more and more hectic attempts, often accompanied by depressing failures, seek intimacy with the most incredible partners. Since the sense of identity is lost, even friendships and activities turn into desperate attempts to establish the vague contours of identity through mutual narcissistic reflection: falling in love in this case means turning into someone else. mirror reflection, causing harm to himself and the &ldquo-mirror&rdquo-. ... The "ego" thus loses its ability to succumb to sexual and affective sensuality in merging with another individual, ... merging with another becomes a loss of identity. All capacity for reciprocity is in danger of being suddenly disturbed, and the consequence is a desperate desire to start all over again, to return to the original confusion and rage in a way that only very young children do.

At the same time, it is important to understand that the ability of an individual to establish full-fledged close relationships in no way means the formation of some fixed positive attitude regarding the social environment. It is, rather, the ability for wide variability in the continuum "-acceptance - rejection" - while maintaining the integrity of the personality: "-It is necessary to recall that one of the components of closeness is distance, that is, the willingness to reject, ignore or destroy those forces and those people whose the entity seems to threaten its own. Intimacy with a certain part of a person or an idea will not be truly complete without the effective negation of another part. Thus, weakness or excess in rejection is an essential aspect of the inability to achieve intimacy due to incomplete identity: one who is not sure of "- his point of view "-, cannot reasonably reject" - .

Under these conditions, all attempts to establish relationships of proximity inevitably acquire the character of an idealization of the object to which they are directed. If such attempts are successful, the resulting relationship, whatever external forms they did not accept sexual relations, business interaction, friendship, etc.), in its psychological essence are usually symbiotic. This explains the fact that "-young people often demonstrate quite pathetically that salvation for them is possible only as a result of merging with leader - leader is an adult who has the ability and willingness to act as a reliable object for experimentation with rejection and a guide in the very first steps towards intimate reciprocity and legitimate rejection. The older teenager wants to be a disciple or follower, a sexual "servant" or "client" of such a person. If this fails, as often happens because of the absoluteness of this personality, the young man turns to intense introspection and self-knowledge, which can lead him to a state bordering on paralysis. From the point of view of symptoms, this condition manifests itself in a painful sense of isolation, disintegration of inner integrity and identity, a feeling of all-encompassing shame, an inability to sense achievements from any activity.

It is quite obvious that such young people constitute a clearly defined risk group, subject to the influence of destructive leaders, authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies. It is no less obvious in the light of what has been said that necessary condition the formation of a qualitative identity and a full-fledged ability to establish relationships of proximity is the presence of favorable socio-psychological conditions (including the organization of the environment for the life of the individual and the institutional support of its vitality on the part of society), providing ample opportunities for role-playing experimentation and interpersonal interaction in the logic "-subject - subject" - in adolescence.

Meanwhile, modern Russian society not only retains a number of social, political and economic factors that significantly limit this kind of personal activity (for example, the relatively late separation of young people from their parental families, etc.), but periodically there are calls for the introduction of separate education for boys and girls, aimed, in fact, at strengthening the personal isolation of adolescents and young men allegedly in the name of "-morality"- and "-traditional values"-. This kind of "innovation" not only does not contribute to the solution of such really urgent and interrelated problems of Russian society as the demographic crisis and the crisis of the family, but also exacerbates them, since individuals with confused identities are simply incapable of establishing interpersonal relationships, which are the basis for creating a truly functional family.

As E.-Fromm writes, "-there is only one form of closeness that does not hinder the development of the personality and does not cause contradictions and loss of energy, this is mature love - by this term I mean complete closeness between two people, each of whom retains complete independence and in in a sense, separation.Love truly does not cause conflicts and does not lead to loss of energy, since it combines two deep human needs: intimacy and independence "- . The fact that such relationships based on the dynamic balance of "acceptance-rejection" are a prerequisite for preserving the family and maintaining its functionality is confirmed by numerous sociological and socio-psychological studies: "study after study shows that unhappy spouses show intractability, authoritarianism tend to criticize and suppress each other... happy couples learn, sometimes with the help psychological training, to refrain from harshness and cowardly pouring fuel on the fire, to argue honestly, expressing their feelings in a manner that is not offensive to the opponent ... "-.

Note that all of the above is true both in the context of marital and parent-child relationship. Parents unable to mature love, as a rule, use the child as a convenient object for the sublimation of their own infantile childhood fantasies. It is important to understand that destructive interaction of this kind can take a wide variety of forms - from frankly cruel attitude to children to hypertrophied, erected in a kind of cult of caring for them.

It is quite clear that the ability to establish adequate relationships of intimacy is essential and in many respects determining not only from the point of view of the individual's prospects in terms of creating a full-fledged family but also in a much broader social context. So, for example, individuals in whom this ability is significantly limited, as a rule, cannot be fully integrated into the group, "-getting stuck" - at the stages of adaptation or individualization. As leaders, they tend to authoritarian style management, replacing the creative and creative press with bureaucratic procedures, while at the same time risking becoming a virtual puppet in the hands of a "strong" deputy or even a secretary.