The conflict between the individual and the state is central to the poem by A.S. Pushkin "The Bronze Horseman". The author tries to answer the question, what is more important: the happiness of the “little man” or progress, the development of society? Pushkin could not give an unambiguous answer to this question, and this was reflected in the artistic features of the poem.
The most striking artistic feature is the plot of the work.
In the exhibition, the reader is presented with a detailed description of the main character of the poem. Evgeny is a “little man” and the complete opposite of his namesake Eugene Onegin. The reader learns that he is not rich, “lives in Kolomna, serves somewhere” and wants little from life. Evgeniy dreams of simple human happiness: to get a “place”, marry his beloved Parasha, have children and peacefully while away his life. It would seem that what could prevent the fulfillment of such simple desires? But a person is not free to control his destiny when the elements come into play.
The plot begins with a flood. Evgeniy escapes from the water by climbing on a marble lion among the splendor of St. Petersburg, and looks at the raging Neva. Only one thought gnaws at him: is Parasha alive? It is characteristic that the “Bronze Horseman” has his back turned to Eugene, which symbolizes the indifference of the authorities to the problems of the little man.
The culmination of the poem is Eugene's second meeting with the Bronze Horseman. Seeing the statue again, Eugene concludes that Peter 1 is to blame for his tragedy. With anger in his heart, he clenches his fist and threatens him. Pushkin does not support the rebellion of the “little man” against the authorities, he shows how cruelly the authorities deal with rebels: Evgeny goes crazy, it seems to him that the monument has come to life and is pursuing him through the streets of St. Petersburg. The denouement of the plot is the death of Eugene.
It is also worth mentioning the main points of view on this conflict. So, according to Belinsky, Peter 1 is right, since he is a representative of the inevitable historical process. The Russian critic believes that in order to create a harmonious state, the interests of the individual are not so important. The poet Bryusov adheres to the opposite point of view. He believed that the death of even the most insignificant person from the point of view of the idea of great power cannot be justified by great achievements.
Thus, Pushkin reveals this conflict to the reader from a universal human point of view. He shows that the “little man” is weak, he cannot withstand the blow of fate, he is not able to protect himself. Every person has the right to be happy, but progress is also necessary. Unfortunately, it is the “little man” who turns out to be the victim of progress in the first place, and therefore the government must take care of its people and protect them.
“School conflicts” - “Punishment of parents” Opera - [punishment of parents 1:: Video on RuTube -]. Conflict prevention. From love to hate there is one step, from hatred to love there are kilometers of steps. Why did the conflict arise? Disobedience and aggressive behavior in children. Fragment No. 1: “Geometry lesson” Fragment No. 2: “Punishment of parents” Fragment No. 3: “Revolt.”
“The Problem of Conflict” - Conclusion. Competition, use of force, dominance. Clarifying ideas. Conflict styles. Differences and discrepancies Needs Perception Power Values and principles Feelings and emotions. Problems of the competing approach. Evasion, escape. Do I understand you correctly...? Conclusion of mutually beneficial agreements.
“Conflicts at school” - Agenda: Understanding by members of the pedagogical council of the main causes of conflict situations. Result from the group: strategies for teacher behavior in typical conflict situations have been developed. Work in groups. Result from the group: 3-4 typical conflict situations that I would like to sort out.
“Social conflict” - Ways of behavior in conflict situations. A fight between two drunk men. By area of activity: Economic Political Ideological Ethnic Religious Household, etc. Lecture 15. Conflict resolution can use various methods. Cooperation is coordinated action to achieve a common goal.
“Conflicts with children” - Cooperation. A typical reaction to a conflict situation is confrontation, competition. Memo for parents. “From love to hate there is one step, from hatred to love – a kilometer of steps.” People stand for joint discussion of disagreements in order to develop a common solution. What does a child in adolescence fight for and against?
“Conflict Management” - Department of “State, Municipal and Corporate Governance”. Types of conflicts. Causes of conflicts. Own interests. Diagnosis of conflicts. Sources of conflicts. Lecture questions: Personal methods of conflict management. Conflict management methods. Consequences of conflicts. Interest in others.
At all times, the relationship between the individual and the authorities has worried people. Sophocles was one of the first to raise the topic of conflict between the individual and the state in literature back in the 5th century BC. This conflict was inevitable, this problem remained relevant in the 19th century, during the time of Pushkin, and it is still relevant to this day.
The poem “The Bronze Horseman” occupies a special place in Pushkin’s work. This peculiarity lies in the fact that the current reader can see in it predictions that have come true in contemporary history. The conflict between the state and the individual still occurs today. As before, the individual risks his freedom and life, and the state, its authority.
The poem begins with a wonderful picture of St. Petersburg, presented to the reader as “midnight lands of beauty and wonder.” Petersburg appears completely different to us in the poem “The Bronze Horseman,” written by Pushkin in 1833. This is the capital of a strong European state, brilliant, rich, magnificent, but cold and hostile for the “little man”. The sight of an incredible city, which, by human will, stood “on the banks of the Neva” is amazing. It seems that it is full of harmony and high, almost divine, meaning. Nevertheless, it was built by people who carried out human will. This man, to whose will millions are obedient, who embodied the idea of the state, is Peter. Undoubtedly, Pushkin treats Peter as a great man. That is why, in the first lines of the poem, he appears as such. Having squeezed out the meager nature, dressed the banks of the Neva in granite, creating a city that has never existed before, it is truly majestic. But Peter here is also a creator, and therefore a man. Peter stands on the shore “full of great thoughts.” Thoughts, thoughts are another feature of his human appearance.
So, in the first part of the poem we see the dual image of Peter. On the one hand, he is the personification of the state, almost God, creating a fairy-tale city from scratch with his sovereign will, on the other hand, he is a man, a creator. But, having once appeared like this at the beginning of the poem, Peter will later be completely different.
At the time when the action of the poem takes place, Peter’s human essence already becomes the property of history. What remains is the copper Peter - an idol, an object of worship, a symbol of sovereignty. The very material of the monument - copper - speaks volumes. This is the material of bells and coins. Religion and the church as the pillars of the state, finance, without which it is unthinkable, are all united in copper. Resonant, but dull and green-tinged metal, very suitable for a “state horseman”.
Unlike him, Evgeny is a living person. He is the complete antithesis of Peter in everything else. Evgeniy did not build cities; he can be called a philistine. He “does not remember his kinship,” although his surname, as the author clarifies, is one of the noble ones. Evgeniy's plans are simple:
"Well, I'm young and healthy,
Ready to work day and night,
I’ll arrange something for myself
Shelter humble and simple
And in it I will calm Parasha...”
To explain the essence of the conflict in the poem, it is necessary to talk about its third main character, the elements. Peter's force of will, which created the city, was not only a creative act, but also an act of violence. And this violence, having changed in a historical perspective, now, in the time of Eugene, returns in the form of a riot of elements. You can even see the opposite contrast between the images of Peter and the elements. Just as motionless, although majestic, Peter is, so unbridled and mobile is the element. An element that, ultimately, he himself gave birth to. Thus, Peter, as a generalized image, is opposed by the elements, and specifically by Eugene. It would seem, how can an insignificant man in the street even be compared with the bulk of a copper giant?
To explain this, it is necessary to see the development of the images of Eugene and Peter, which occurred at the time of their direct collision. Having long ceased to be a man, Peter is now a copper statue. But his metamorphoses do not stop there. A beautiful, magnificent horseman reveals the ability to become something that most closely resembles a watchdog. After all, it is in this capacity that he chases Eugene around the city. Evgeniy is also changing. From an indifferent philistine he turns into a frightened philistine (the riot of the elements!), and then desperate courage comes to him, allowing him to shout: “Already for you!” This is how two personalities meet in a conflict (for now Evgeniy is also a personality), each going their own way to it.
The first result of the conflict is Eugene's insanity. But is this madness? Perhaps we can say that there are truths, the full meaning of which cannot be sustained by the weak human mind. The great emperor, like a watchdog chasing after the smallest of his subjects, is a funny and terrible figure at the same time. Therefore, Eugene’s laughter is understandable, but his mental illness is also understandable: he came face to face with the state itself, with its copper, merciless face.
So, the conflict between the individual and the state: is it resolved in the poem? Yes and no. Of course, Eugene dies, the person who directly opposed the state in the form of the Bronze Horseman dies. The revolt is suppressed, but the image of the elements that runs through the entire poem remains a disturbing warning. The destruction in the city is enormous. The number of victims is high. Nothing can withstand the elements of flooding. The Bronze Horseman himself stands, washed by muddy waves. He, too, is powerless to stop their onslaught. All this suggests that any violence inevitably entails retribution. In a strong-willed, violent manner, Peter established a city among the wild nature, which will now forever be subject to attacks from the elements. And who knows whether Eugene, who was so in vain and casually destroyed, will not become a small drop of anger, the gigantic wave of which will one day sweep away the copper idol?
A state that endlessly suppresses its subjects in the name of its goals is impossible. They, the subjects, are more important and primary than the state itself. Figuratively speaking, the Finnish waves will forget their “enmity and their ancient captivity” when Evgenia, to be happy with her Parasha, does not need anyone’s permission. Otherwise, the element of popular revolt, no less terrible than the element of flood, will carry out its judgment, without distinguishing between right and wrong. This, in my opinion, is the essence of the conflict between man and the state.
There are a number of differing opinions as to what the main idea of the poem “The Bronze Horseman” is. V. G. Belinsky, who argued that the main idea of the poem is the triumph of “the general over the particular,” with the author’s obvious sympathy for “the suffering of this particular,” was obviously right. A.S. Pushkin sings the anthem to the capital of the Russian state:
I love you, Petra's creation,
I love your strict, slender appearance,
Neva sovereign current,
Its coastal granite,
Your fences have a cast iron pattern...
“Pompously, proudly” the city rose “from the darkness of the forests and swamps of blat” and became the heart of a mighty state:
Show off, city Petrov, and stand
Unshakable, like Russia.
Outstanding people of their time, passionate, creative personalities, were tortured and burned at the stake by the state, spread rot in prisons and psychiatric clinics, killed, silenced with a career and a well-fed life, or it made them marginalized and completely ignored them.
Outstanding people responded to the state in the same coin - thanks to their efforts, their passion, empires collapsed, social formations changed, some died, and other ideologies arose.
State policy and interstate relations in the world are also very aggressive, continuous cold, ideological and hot, wars and conflicts. A high level of aggression also exists in interpersonal relationships; just read crime reports.
So is the conflict between the individual and the individual, the state and the state, the state and the individual, eternal? After all, the phrase is still popular in Russia that our people live on their own, and the state lives on its own. What is not the reason and what is not the basis for a new conflict?
In my opinion, the reasons for the conflict between the individual and the state lie primarily in the field of worldview, and they can be fully explained by the imperfection of philosophical approaches to this issue.
Materialist philosophy ignores idealists. This is already a reason for conflict. Idealist philosophy ignores materialists. They pay them in the same coin. Dualistic ideology tries to impose a separate, parallel existence on materialists and idealists, but the conflict arises because matter and idea need each other, complement each other and cannot live in parallel. The quantum approach speaks of the simultaneous existence of the material and the ideal in any thing, including in humans. This removes the conflict between the material and the ideal, mixing these principles, but leaves aside the sphere of multidimensional transitions from the material to the ideal and vice versa, so the conflict shifts directly from the material and ideal to the sphere of their relations, to the sphere of the balance of interests between matter and spirit. And here either matter pulls the blanket over itself, or the idea, with varying degrees of success. Only a spiritual approach or the theory of metalogical transitions offers great prospects for resolving the age-old conflict.
This theory postulates that any thing, including a person, simultaneously exists as material (part), ideal (whole) and spiritual (harmonious relationship between part and whole).
By spiritual we mean the relationship and interaction between the material and the ideal, a harmonious mutual balance of interests between the material and the ideal.
The spiritual is a single scale of transitional forms from matter to idea, from material diversity to ideal integrity and vice versa. If we move from matter, from diversity to idea, to integrity, then the spiritual is matter, matter-idea, a single beginning, spirit, not matter and not idea (compromise), idea-matter and idea.
If we move from the idea as integrity to material diversity, then the spiritual is an idea, an idea-matter, not matter and not an idea (compromise), matter-idea, matter.
If we take the contradictions between the Reds and the Whites into the civil war, then the spiritual scale of multidimensional transitions allows us to reach a compromise between the Red and White movements, creating a single movement, because this movement conflicts only on its periphery, but not in transitional forms.
Therefore, spirit is a movement not towards the periphery (red-white) for a break, but towards the spiritual scale of transitional forms.
To achieve a conflict-free and mutually beneficial compromise, the Reds must move from Red not to even more Red, but to Red-White, and then neither White nor Red. White should also move not to even more white, but to white-red, and then also to non-white and non-red. Thus, conflicting opposites are extinguished and become conflict-free mutual complementarities of each other to the point of perfection, which is mutual non-violent compromise.
Now regarding personality, state and ideology from the point of view of the philosophy of metalogical transitions. Personality is a form, an object, a matter, an element, a structure, an individual. The state is content, subject, whole, energy, structureless, global.
Ideology is the essence, interconnection, interaction and relationship between form and content, the spiritual as the potency of the individual in the global and vice versa, it is a harmonious balance of interests between the individual and the global without infringing on each other.
For spiritual philosophy, everything that exists, including man, is at the same time a person (element, structure), and a state (whole, structureless) and an interconnection and interaction, a mutual relationship (ideology).
Thus, from the point of view of the theory of metalogical transitions, a person is simultaneously a material form, an ideal content and a spiritual essence, it is an inseparable synergetic conflict-free, and therefore a perfect system of “personality-ideology-state”, “matter-spirit-idea”, “element” -interconnection-whole”, “consciousness – trans-consciousness – subconscious”. All problems and conflicts begin only when we divide this single synergetic system, which is a person, into its components (personality, state, ideology) and contrast these components to each other. External mutual relations between people, between states, and also between a person and a state are simply a form of expression of their internal relations, that’s all. And in a single synergetic system, these relationships are always mutually beneficial and harmonious. As for primacy and secondaryness, there is no such concept in the synergetic system, because its principles are all equal to each other and exist simultaneously with each other and in each other, but in relation to man, GOD is primary as the awareness of such a trial synergetic system.
One of the main issues of creativity of A.S. Pushkin was the question of the relationship between the individual and the state, as well as the ensuing problem of the “little man”. It is known that it was Pushkin who seriously developed this problem, which was later “picked up” by N.V. Gogol, and F.M. Dostoevsky.
Pushkin’s poem “The Bronze Horseman” reveals the eternal conflict - the contradiction between the interests of the individual and the state. Pushkin believed that this conflict was inevitable, at least in Russia. It is impossible to govern the state and take into account the interests of every “little person”. Moreover, Russia is a semi-Asian country, where despotism and tyranny reigned since ancient times, which was taken for granted by both the people and the rulers.
The poem has a subtitle - “The Petersburg Tale”, followed by a preface emphasizing the reality of everything described: “The incident described in this story is based on the truth. Details of the flood are taken from magazines of the time. The curious can consult the news compiled by V. N. Berkh.”
In the introduction to the poem, a majestic image of Peter I is created, who glorified his name with many deeds. Without a doubt, Pushkin pays tribute to the power and talent of Peter. This tsar “made” Russia in many ways and contributed to its prosperity. On the poor and wild banks of a small river, Peter built a grandiose city, one of the most beautiful in the world. St. Petersburg became a symbol of a new, enlightened and strong power:
Along busy shores
Slender communities crowd together
Palaces and towers; ships
A crowd from all over the world
They strive for rich marinas...
The poet loves St. Petersburg with all his soul. For him, this is his homeland, the capital, the personification of the country. He wishes this city eternal prosperity. But the following words of the lyrical hero are important and interesting: “May the defeated element make peace with you...”
The main part of the poem tells about life contemporary to Pushkin. St. Petersburg is still as beautiful as it was under Peter. But the poet also sees another image of the capital. This city marks a sharp boundary between the “powers that be” and ordinary residents. St. Petersburg is a city of contrasts, where “little people” live and suffer.
The hero of the poem, Eugene, is a simple resident of the capital, one of many. His life is narrated in the first part of the work. Evgeniy’s life is filled with pressing everyday concerns: how to feed himself, where to get money. The hero wonders why some are given everything, while others are given nothing. After all, these “others” do not shine at all with either intelligence or hard work, and for them “life is much easier.” Here the theme of the “little man” and his insignificant position in society begins to develop. He is forced to endure injustices and blows of fate only because he was born “small”.
Among other things, we learn that Eugene has plans for the future. He is going to marry a simple girl like him, Parasha. Beloved Evgenia and her mother live on the banks of the Neva in a small house. The hero dreams of starting a family, having children, he dreams that in old age his grandchildren will take care of them.
But Evgeniy’s dreams were not destined to come true. A terrible flood interfered with his plans. It destroyed almost the entire city, but it also destroyed the hero’s life, killed and destroyed his soul. The rising waters of the Neva destroyed Parasha's house and killed the girl herself and her mother. What was left for poor Eugene? It is interesting that the entire poem is accompanied by the definition - “poor”. This epithet speaks of the author’s attitude towards his hero - an ordinary resident, a simple person, with whom he sympathizes with all his heart.
The second part of the poem depicts the consequences of the flood. For Evgeny they are scary. The hero loses everything: his beloved girl, shelter, hopes for happiness. The distraught Eugene considers the Bronze Horseman, a double of Peter himself, to be the culprit of his tragedy. In his frustrated imagination, the Bronze Horseman is a “proud idol”, “by whose fateful will the city was founded here”, who “raised Russia on its hind legs with an iron bridle.”
It was Peter, according to Eugene, who built this city on the banks of the river, in places that are regularly flooded. But the king did not think about it. He thought about the greatness of the entire country, about his own greatness and power. He was least concerned about the difficulties that could arise for ordinary residents of St. Petersburg.
Only in delirium is a hero capable of protest. He threatens the monument: “Too bad for you!” But then it began to seem to the insane Eugene that the monument was chasing him, running after him through the streets of the city. All the hero’s protest, his courage immediately disappeared. After that, he began to walk past the monument, without raising his eyes and embarrassedly crumpling his cap in his hands: he dared to rebel against the king! As a result, the hero dies.
Of course, only in the head of a crazy hero could such visions arise. But in the poem they acquire a deep meaning and are filled with the poet’s bitter philosophical reflections. Flood is likened here to any transformations and reforms. They are similar to the elements, because, like them, they do not take into account the interests of ordinary people at all. It is not for nothing that St. Petersburg was built on the bones of its builders. Pushkin is full of sympathy for “little” people. He shows the other side of reforms, transformations, and thinks about the price of the country's greatness.
Symbolic in the poem is the image of a king who has come to terms with the elements, reassuring himself that “Tsars cannot cope with God’s elements.”
The poet's conclusions are sad. The conflict between the individual and the state is inevitable, insoluble, and its outcome has long been known.