MYTHOSEMANTIC AND MYTHOPOETIC COMPONENTS OF STUDENTS-PSYCHOLOGISTS’ SENSE OF THEMSELVES
Liudmyla Krupelnytska
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0594-2369
Tetiana Kudrina
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8553-2457
PDF 7-22 (Українська)

Keywords

mythosemantic component
mythopoetic component
students-psychologists
sense of themselves
non-reflective mythopoetic self-descriptions
themes
semantic blocks
images

How to Cite

Krupelnytska, L., & Kudrina, T. (2021). MYTHOSEMANTIC AND MYTHOPOETIC COMPONENTS OF STUDENTS-PSYCHOLOGISTS’ SENSE OF THEMSELVES. PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNAL, 7(9), 7-22. https://doi.org/10.31108/1.2021.7.9.1

Abstract

The study involved 85 students of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, majoring in "psychology" and "military psychology"; the average age is 21.9 years. A qualitative and quantitative analysis of sense of self which is represented in the drawings and non-reflexive mythopoetic self-descriptions. The method of content analysis was used to analyze the themes and figurative and symbolic content of texts. Mythosemantic and mythopoetic components of the students-psychologist's sense of themselves are correlated as less and more differentiated its components, which represent poorly perceived personal meanings, life landmarks and their specificity in the subjects. They primarily reflect aspects of personal and professional identification and choice of life path. It was found that mythopoetic self-descriptions of students-psychologists in terms of thematic and figurative-symbolic content, as well as the corresponding self-positioning, form five semantic blocks, unevenly represented in the studied groups.

In terms of thematic coverage, the largest semantic block in both the group of students-civil psychologists (CP) and the group of students-military psychologists (MP) is "Person in development and search". At the same time in the group of MP difficulties of symbolization within this block are noted. The smallest block in the group MP is "Reflexive person", and in the group CP it is "Social person". In terms of its figurative and symbolic content, the "Reflexive person" block in the GP group is the second largest, but in the EP group it is the smallest. In terms of its figurative and symbolic content, the block "Social person" is less represented in the CP group, while in the MP group it is the second largest after the blocks "Person in development and search" and "Positive person". At the same time, the ratio of metalological and autological images in this block in the MP group is 1:5, that is, the images perform primarily a pictorial rather than symbolic function. For the block "Person in trials and problems" in the CP group, the prevalence of the proportion of themes over the proportion of produced images is noted. Discrepancies in thematic and figurative and symbolic content of semantic blocks may reflect a certain limitation of symbolization on topics that are problematic for an individual.

The sense of themselves is increasingly specified in the СP by aspects of reflexivity and personal development, and in the MP by aspects of social normativity and positivity.

 

PDF 7-22 (Українська)

References

Arlow, J. A. (2018). Fantasy, Memory, and Reality Testing. The Psychoanalytic Quarterly, 87:1, 127-148, doi: 10.1080/00332828.2018.1424443.

Aloairdhi, N. M. & Kahlaoui, N. (2020). Linguistic, Cognitive, and Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Metaphors. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 10 (9), 1078-1085. http://dx.doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1009.10.

Arnheim, R. (1969). Visual thinking. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.

Boshra, V. (2016). Getting the Feel of Therapy: Understanding Therapists’ Views and Experiences Regarding Social-Emotional Skills in Practice. Doctor’s thesis. Albany.

Brenner, H. (1988). The self-understanding of the psychotherapist. The Humanistic Psychologist, 16(1), 140-152. https://doi.org/10.1080/08873267.1988.9976815

Brooks L. M. (2016). Understanding Motherhood: Through a Woman’s Personal Myth. Doctoral dissertation. Carpinteria. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses database. (UMI No. 10250831)

Chudova, N. V. (1999). Mifologicheskaya sostavlyayushchaya obraza Ya [The mythological component of the self-image]. Psikhologicheskij zhurnal – Psychological journal, 20(5). 45-50.

Gucol, S. Ju. (2015). Psihologija mifoporozhdenija v sovremennoj kul'ture [Psychology of myth-building in contemporary culture]. Doctor’s thesis. Kiev [in Russian].

Hendricks, R. K., Bergen, B. K., & Marghetis, T. (2018). Do metaphors move from mind to mouth? Evidence from a new system of linguistic metaphors for time. Cognitive Science, 42, 2950-2975. doi: 10.1111/cogs.12693.

Hernández-Varas E., Encinas F.J.L., & Suárez M.M. (2019). Psychological capital, work satisfaction and health self-perceptionas predictors of psychological wellbeing in military personnel. Psicothema, 31(3), 277-283. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2019.22.

Kalmykov, H. (2017). Dyskursyvnyi vplyv yak sposib realizatsii profesiino-movlennievoi diialnosti psykholoha [Discursive Influence in the Professional Speech Activity of an Individual Psychologist]. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 4(1), 86-99. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.829992 [in Ukrainian].

Kelli, Dzh. A. (2000). Teorija lichnosti. Psihologija lichnostnyh konstruktov. [A theory of personality. The Psychology of Personal Constructs]. SPb. [in Russian].

Kobzar, O. (2013). Mifopoetychnyi analiz khudozhnoho tvoru [Mythopoetic analysis of art work]. Filolohichni nauky - Philological sciences, 15,16-23. Retrieved from: http://dspace.pnpu.edu.ua/bitstream/123456789/3540/1/Kobzar.pdf [in Ukrainian].

Kozolupenko, D. P. (2009). Mifopojeticheskoe mirovosprijatie i mif: principy vzaimodejstvija i projavlenija v kul'ture [Mythopoetic worldview and myth: principles of interaction and manifestation in culture]. Voprosy kul'turologii – Issues of Culture Studies, 6, 12-16. Retrieved from: https://www.elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_13033903_39979989.pdf [in Russian].

Kolesnichenko, A. & Kharytska, S. (2020). Suchasnyi stan osmyslennia definitsii «mifopoetyka». [Modern state of mythopoetics definition comprehension]. Humanitarna osvita v tekhnichnykh vyshchykh navchalnykh zakladakh - Humanities education in technical higher educational institutions, 41, 85-93. Retrieved from: https://er.nau.edu.ua/handle/NAU/42379 [in Ukrainian].

Krasnyh, V. V. (2020). Arhaicheskie sloi soznanija sovremennoj jazykovoj lichnosti (na primere bazovoj metafory zhidkost') [Archaic layers of consciousness of modern linguistic personality (a case study of the basic metaphor liquid)]. Voprosy psiholingvistiki – Journal of Psycholinguistics, 3(45), 70-84. doi: 10.30982/2077-5911-2020-45-3-70-84 [in Russian].

Krupel'nickaja, L. (2020). Personal'nyj mif: filosofskie, psihologicheskie i psihoterapevticheskie aspekty [A personal myth: philosophical, psychological and psychotherapeutic aspects]. Psihologіchnij chasopis – Psychological Journal, 6(8), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.31108/1.2020.6.8.2 [in Russian].

Leont'yev, D. A. (2004). Mirovozzreniye kak mif i mirovozreniye kak deyatel'nost' [Worldview as a myth and worldview as an activity]. In V.I. Kabrin & O.I. Murav’eva (Eds.) Mentalitet i kommunikativnaya sreda v tranzitivnom obshchestve - Mentality and communication environment in a transitive society (pp. 11-29). Tomsk: Tomskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet [in Russian].

Lobok, A. (1997). Antropologija mifa. [Anthropology of Myth]. Ekaterinburg: Bank kul'turnoj informacii [in Russian].

Lobok, A. M. (2001). Veroyatnostnyy mir [Probabilistic world]. Yekaterinburg: Izd-vo AMB [in Russian].

Losev, A. F. (1991) Dialektika mifa [Dialectic of Myth]. Filosofiia. Mifologiia. Kultura – Philosophy. Mythology. Culture. (pp. 21-186). Moscow: Politizdat [in Russian].

Meshcheriakova, E.I. (2001) Personalnyi mif v psikhologicheskom konsultirovanii [Personal Myth in Psychological Counceling]. Doctor’s thesis. Tomsk [in Russian].

Mihajlova, I. V. & Taskina, S. V. (2017). Samovosprijatie i kognitivnye osobennosti studentov s raznym sociometricheskim statusom [Self-examination and cognitive features of students with different sociometric status]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta. Serija: Psihologicheskie nauki - Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University (Psychology), 4, 60-67. doi: 10.18384/2310-7235-2017-4-60-67 [in Russian].

Nekrasova, Ye. V. (2011). Personalnyi mif kak sposob samoponimaniia [Personal Myth as a Means of Selfunderestanding]. Vestnik NGU. Seriia: Psikhologiia - Journal of NGU. Series: Psychology, 5 (2), 23-27. Retrieved from: https://lib.nsu.ru/xmlui/bitstream/handle/nsu/1380/02.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y [in Russian].

Samiilyk, S. (2016). Asotsiatyvnyi portret studentiv Ukrainy [An Associative Image of Ukrainian Student]. East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, 3(2), 82-91. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.267964 [in Ukrainian].

Serkin, V. P. (2016). Izmenenie predstavlenij o sebe, svoem obraze mira i obraze zhizni pri perezhivanii jekstremal'noj situacii [Changing ideas of self, image of the world and lifestyle under experience in extreme situation]. Social'nye i gumanitarnye nauki na Dal'nem Vostoke – The Humanities and Social Studies in the Far East, 3(51), 174-183. Retrieved from: https://publications.hse.ru/en/articles/198098106 [in Russian].

Serkin, V. P. (2018). Metodologicheskie i organizacionnye voprosy razrabotki klientskogo psihoterapevticheskogo (konsul'tativnogo) mifa [Client psyhotherapeutic myth: Methodological and organizational issues]. Organizacionnaja psihologija – Organizational Psychology, 8(4), 156-167. Retrieved from: https://www.hse.ru/data/2018/12/29/1143006407/OrgPsy_2018_4(8)Serkin(156-167).pdf [in Russian].

Shann S. (2015). A mythopoetic methodology: storytelling as an act of scholarship. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 43(2), 128-142, doi: 10.1080/1359866X.2014.932334

Willer J. (2014). The Psychotherapist’s Self and Relationships. The Beginning Psychotherapist's Companion (2nd ed., pp. 3-12). New York: Oxford University Press.

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Copyright Notice

Articles in the Psychological Journal are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License International CC-BY that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal. For more detailed information, please, fallow the link - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/