Philosophical thinking of the “theatrical" nature of a human being: in search of directions for the study of "everyday theatricality"

Rakhimova Maiya Vil'evna PhD in Philosophy Associate professor, Department of Social Sciences, Humanities and Psychological-Pedagogical Disciplines; South Ural State Institute of Art named after P. I. Tchaikovsky 454091, Russia, Chelyabinskaya Oblast' oblast', g. Chelyabinsk, ul. Plekhanova, 41 Mayesta@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

Theatrical (dramatic) behavior, which is characteristic of a person from time to time in the daily culture of communication, suggests that there is a special "tool" with which such behavior becomes possible. A person uses theatrical means of expression in everyday life, and at the same time he does not have to be a professional actor at all.

One gets the feeling that "everyday theatricality" is written into the content of communication every day and is practically not noticed by the person who carries it. Ultimately, relying on "everyday theatricality", a person forms stable ideas about himself and society, and these ideas do not necessarily correspond to reality, but each time they successfully add up the "appearance" of such.

If we consider that "everyday life" is characterized by "regular repetition, occurs every day, focuses on meeting vital physical and spiritual needs of a person, value meanings in the daily existence of a person or a community of people" ^{[13, pp.5,12,13,473]}, then it can be noted that the "theatrical" nature of man is also She manifests herself in every day of communication, is regular, focused on meeting needs, and therefore is able to be a manifestation of "everyday life" – "everyday theatricality".

At the moment, "everyday theatricality" is characterized as a complex, open, self-organizing phenomenon of human adaptation to external and internal challenges, manifesting the "theatrical" nature of man and realizing its existential potential in society; as a phenomenon with a pronounced social, communicative, sociocultural orientation, realizing itself in the daily culture of communication.

"Everyday theatricality" is closely related to the game as an existential phenomenon, it arises from the game, and more often than not, the game uses its pragmatic potential in everyday life. Despite all the apparent connection between "everyday theatricality" and the phenomenon of theater, spectacle in politics, and society, it is important to note that research at the moment is focused not on characterizing artifacts of culture, art (theater), but on trying to understand a person as a philosophical problem.

Another thing is that it is extremely difficult to find an accurate concept that reveals a person's unique ability to look "different" every time, corresponding (with the help of social roles and masks) to both the external proposed circumstances of society and the internal proposed circumstances of ideas, dreams, and illusions about oneself. Concepts such as "person", "game", "performance", "artistry" and others reflect the features peculiar to the phenomenon under study, but not the phenomenon itself. Therefore, at this stage of the work, the concepts of "everyday theatricality" and "theatrical" human nature are involved as the most profound, meaningful and similar in meaning.

It is possible to identify such properties of the "theatrical" human nature as a mobile internal communicative space (internal dialogues, fantasy), high adaptive potential, sociocultural mimicry, suggestive potential, egocentrism, pragmatism, manipulative potential, role representation, dramatic behavior, existential escapism, self-presentation to "others". The problematic field of "everyday theatricality" affects such aspects of philosophy as "dream", "illusion", "mask", "manipulation", "appearance", "other".

A brief theoretical overview of the meanings of the term "theatricality" indicates its relevance and popularity in humanitarian studies. Theatricality is understood in the professional plane of theater studies, art studies, philology, politics, sociology, and cultural studies. A number of modern definitions of theatricality, as well as leading areas of understanding of the phenomenon, are presented by the author in the publication "Reflection of theatricality as a philosophical and anthropological phenomenon in scientific discourse"; in this work, modern Russian dissertations on the problem of theatricality are analyzed, including the works of Tazetdinova R.R., Raikov V.N., Davydova I.S. and others. ^{[22, pp.172-177]}.

Thus, "theatricality is a phenomenon that goes far beyond the theater as a cultural institution, since the mechanism of social interaction it sets has ontological foundations rooted in human nature" ^{[21, p.3]}.

Theatricality is also understood by the authors as a kind of universal, as an immanent, integrative property of culture, revealing the most important aspects of its genesis and functioning" ^{[9, p. 4]}.

Being an "attribute of culture", theatricality appears as a unique form of human playful existence and the artistic ability of a person to be present in it ^{[25, p. 8,9]}.

It should be noted that knowledge about theatricality as a whole is multilayered and fragmented, confined to professional fields; the discourse revolves around the descriptive characteristics of the phenomenon. The variety of professional approaches to theatricality provides an impressive number of interpretations, a huge amount of literature for analysis; nevertheless, there is not enough material devoted to the "theatrical" nature of man, manifested in the context of "everyday theatricality".

As for the methodology of the work, the study suggests an interdisciplinary approach to the problem. Methods such as analytical, comparative, historical, cultural, descriptive, generalization, analogy, and categorization are in demand.

The subject of the research is the specificity of the "theatrical" nature of man, which manifests itself in the context of "everyday theatricality" as a philosophical and anthropological phenomenon.

Among the key areas, philosophical, anthropological, biological and psychological, as well as areas of philosophy of culture, art, and sociology should be noted. This work focuses on understanding three areas – anthropological, biological, psychological and philosophical. The choice is determined by the author's desire to characterize the origins of "theatrical" human behavior in everyday communication culture (within the framework of anthropological and biological-psychological directions), as well as to identify potentially important philosophical issues and problems related to the study of "everyday theatricality" (within the framework of the philosophical direction). The work reflects some of the current results of the development of the problematic of the "theatrical" nature of man.

The anthropological direction of research

Social and cultural anthropology is usually interested in the specifics of people's perception of the world around them, the impact of knowledge, beliefs, and customs on culture, and the analysis of social relations systems related to everyday life, religion, and economics. Scientists collect and analyze examples of forms of everyday communication, sacred interaction (magical involvement) of a person with spirits, examples of "magical realities" (rituals, rituals), healing techniques, witchcraft and much more.

The anthropological direction in the work can be extremely useful for analyzing the genesis of "everyday theatricality." Numerous examples of diseases and their cures, initiation rites, initiation into secret brotherhoods, resolution of military disputes, and social challenges to the tribe are remarkably "theatrical", demonstrating artistic reactions of people and entire dramatic "performances" in rituals (domestic and sacred).

It seems that at the first stages of historical development, a person mastered numerous skills, and what is extremely important, communicative and socio-cultural. He was surrounded by countless challenges of a very different nature; there are no rules, stable moral precepts yet, language and sense-making are only being formed as tools of thinking and interaction.

Fears fill the soul. Spoilage, evil eyes are seen on every corner - a person is suspicious, extremely susceptible to suggestion and autosuggestion; his psyche feels the space, and this affects behavior, thinking, communication, where understatement, hint, intent, concealment, concealment becomes a useful tool, because it helps to survive, as well as influence the interlocutor.

A person of the primitive era is surrounded by magical realities; they are dangerous and omnipotent, they have pictorial, pantomimic, imitative, verbally suggestive forms; they are realized as a different reality, not an artistic activity. Verbal suggestive utterances (conspiracies, incantations, love "prisushki", etc.) act as a purposeful ritual and magical activity that is based on confidence in the practical effectiveness of the word. The peculiarity of the magical realities that permeate the everyday life of primitive man is that they tend to affect not the person (not his impression), but reality itself ^{[5, pp. 219,220]}, which is syncretic. In these circumstances, a person turns out to be extremely vulnerable in a psychological sense, but also emotionally receptive, open, "mobile", and therefore able to influence complex reality by paradoxical means, including creative, artistic ones.

In search of a manifestation of "theatrical" behavior in everyday life, let us turn to one of the examples of the "magical" cure of a disease by a sorcerer. This example is far from the only one, but it is quite significant in terms of its artistic expressiveness. An example is described in an anthropological study by Artemova O.Y., devoted to the study of personality and social norms in an early primitive community (according to Australian ethnographic data).

We are talking about an ailment that threatened to turn into death for the hero (Mukalakki). The onset of the disease, as well as a happy recovery, have an expressive dramatic connotation. The narrator does not use the expressions "headache" or "it got hot", he describes his condition in vivid colors and images, as if he sees exactly how the disease penetrates his body. The nature of the cure also has a pronounced artistic character, the symptoms of malaise are removed with the help of theatrical means of expression. This interaction between the patient and the doctor demonstrates an example of using the tools of "theatricality" (artistry, suggestion, role behavior, etc.) in everyday communication culture.

So, "Mukalakki woke up one morning and felt unwell. After thinking about it, he decided that the time had come to pay for the taboo violation committed many years ago (he once ate the forbidden meat of the culoan snake). A healer who lived nearby confirmed this version and concluded: "You're going to die today!" By evening, Mukalakki became very ill: the spirit of kulloagno "wrapped" his body, "pierced" his head, and from time to time "stuck out of his forehead, looking straight into his eyes." All this was accompanied by severe convulsions, so that several men had to hold Mukalakki by the legs, by the arms and by the head."

My family "called" a doctor, a healer named Morpun. When the doctor agreed, arrived and confirmed the disease, he began the treatment itself. When Mukalakki jumped up once again, because the "snake of the kool-aid" came out of his forehead again and began to look into his eyes, the Morpun, coming close to the patient, suddenly grabbed the "snake" by the head. No one but him and Mukalakka could see it. Morpoon held the "snake" very tightly and carefully "unwound" it, freeing Mukalakki's body. When this operation was successfully completed, Morpun "coiled the snake and put it in his bag." Soon Mukalakki felt great relief, he was able to breathe freely, then he fell asleep. The healer spent the night at the patient's campsite and the next day went to "his country." He took the "Spirit of culoagno" with him to release it far into the mountains into one of the reservoirs with the words: "Lie at the bottom, do not come back" ^{[2, pp. 154,155]}.

As can be seen from the example, imagination, multiplied by faith in the proposed circumstances, in magical realities, plays an important role, affects the mood and behavior of the participants in the event, and decides a lot in the daily culture of communication. It would not be an exaggeration to assume that in an effort to overcome vulnerability to complex challenges, problems, innate artistry, theatrical means of communication often come to the rescue, where makeup, costume, and demeanor can help influence events, heal the patient, hide true feelings, fears, intentions; establish the necessary contact, form a positive An image to avoid trouble. As a result, the "theatrical nature" of a person gets an opportunity for self-development and self-realization, and gradually becomes a sought-after social tool for adapting a person to the environment.

The figure of a priest, a shaman, a sorcerer, a magician, a chosen one, an initiate, an "artist", a leader deserves special attention ^{[17, p. 397]}. The anthropological literature sheds light on the specifics of his professional growth, the peculiarities of behavior and impact on the audience, on the viewer, on the feedback ("spectator") connection.

The techniques of healing diseases of a magical nature appear as real performances ^{[2, pp. 154,155]}, where there is a place for drama, special effects, and great emotional shock. They are extremely theatrical in terms of external and internal, meaningful characteristics ^{[19, pp. 70, 71]}. And we are not talking about the costume of a witch doctor, a sorcerer, but about the power of dramatic influence - suggestion that the sorcerer (he is also a doctor) used, and the patient was so trusting and mentally responsive that he "saw" invisible spirits being expelled from him, and "heard" their inaudible screams, and believed in what was happening..

However, for all the spiritual responsiveness of an ordinary person and his ability to be influenced, it should be noted that he did not always sincerely believe in what was happening. J. Huizinga, for example, writes: "... faith in sacred ideas is a kind of half-faith, accompanied by irony and indifference." Both the sorcerer and the bewitched one know and are deceived at the same time. And a savage is a good actor and a good spectator ^{[27, p. 49]}. It seems that if a person did not really believe to the end, then he demonstrated faith (broadcast its presence) actively, diligently, with all my might.

Among anthropological scientists, the works of such authors as L. Levi-Bruhl, K. Levi-Strauss, J. Frankl, J. Fraser, M. Eliade, L. White, B. Malinovsky, F. Boas, A. van Gennep, O.Y. Artemova and others are of particular interest at the moment.

L. Levy-Bruhl's works interestingly reflect the moment when the phenomenon of magical involvement and the widespread fear of spirits ^{[16, p. 39,40]}, which overwhelm the world, gently but persistently polished the model of contractual interaction between humans and otherworldly forces using dramatic, artistic means of "communication".

The rites of passage ^{[7, p. 72,73]}, which are actively analyzed by A. van Gennep, demonstrate masterfully directed initiation performances, initiation performances into a secret brotherhood, where both sides understand how to play, where to be afraid, how to properly "die and rise again" in a new status, how to dramatically bulge their fellow tribesmen by showing them a new self in a new sense of power, granted, for example, by a costume, makeup, mask.

Mircea Eliade explores in detail the specifics of the birth and formation of a shaman, the initial (cognitive) data that he must possess and which he acquires while "learning". As the problem of the shaman's professional birth unfolds, it becomes clear that most of the skills he acquires are artistic in nature ^{[30, p. 55,56]}.

Thus, within the framework of social and cultural anthropology, it is possible to trace the first (early) examples of the use of "theatrical" interaction between people, the nature of their interaction, the specifics, attributes of "everyday theatricality", the influence of the phenomenon on culture (religious and everyday). However, the search for the origins of the formation of "theatrical" behavior is not limited to the anthropological field alone, and, at a minimum, presupposes a biological and psychological view of the problem, since "theatrical" behavior reproduces itself with the help of the psyche (builds models of behavior in the imagination; it is capable of inspiring and experiencing suggestion, and so on). In this regard, let us turn to the characterization of the biological and psychological field as potentially important for the work.

The biological and psychological direction of research

Reflecting on the "theatrical" nature of man, it is difficult to ignore the biological and psychological aspect of the study, which allows us to note a certain functional similarity between biological reflection and reflection characteristic of "everyday theatricality", which reflects in communication (speech, manners) of the "other" so that through the elements of communicative coincidence to build communication in the best way.

Biological reflection serves the adaptive tasks of a living organism. The "theatrical" nature of man also contributes to the development of adaptability and survival skills, only in a social environment. The processes of biological and "theatrical" reflection involve consciousness, the nervous system, and sensory organs (specific cognitive tools peculiar to living species). Therefore, in search of the genesis and specifics of the functioning of "everyday theatricality", it seems important to turn to scientific works on biology, cognitive sciences, works on psychiatry and psychology.

In the search for coincidences of biological, mental and "theatrical" reflections, a possible biological justification of the "theatrical" nature of man, the analysis of suggestion as a mental contagion that influenced "everyday theatricality", emotions as potential drivers of the manifestation of "everyday theatricality", the works of authors such as T.V. Chernigov, V.M. Bekhterev can be used., Dawkins R., Ivannikov V.A., Izard K.E., Sidis B., Smorodintsev Al. A., Umryukhin P.E., Zimmer K. and many others.

In particular, Tatiana Vladimirovna Chernihiv writes about the infinite complexity of the brain, neural networks, networks of networks, "qualia" (subjective reality) ^{[29, pp. 24,43]}, as well as language as a world of symbols; a world associated with thinking. And this is important for the study of the "theatrical" nature of man, since if language "occupied" the brain, then it means that it is quite able to dictate its own (symbolic) conditions of "mutual" existence with the brain ^{[29, p. 25]}.

Analyzing the influence of language not from the philological, but from the biological side is important for this work because, being a tool of thinking and communication, as well as an expression of subjective worlds, language captures and manifests the "theatrical" nature of a person, forms internal and external dialogues, successfully implements hidden meanings, shades, hints in sociocultural communication.

Exploring the brain and psyche in medical and scientific practice, Vladimir Mikhailovich Bekhterev pays special attention to "mental contagion" (mental contagion), that is, suggestion ^{[4, p. 16]}, which is widespread, quickly transmitted during communication and affects the nature of images, the speed of decision-making. It is difficult to characterize the "representation" of oneself in society outside of the potential of suggestion as an instrument of hidden influence and manipulation, therefore, the study of this property of "everyday theatricality" seems important.

Remarkably, elements of "theatrical" behavior can also be observed at the level of the microcosm [28 p. 119,120]; ^{[10, p. 285,286,289]}, as well as the world of viruses, when, in order to achieve a goal, the virus pretends to be "different", forms a "positive" image in front of a living cell, and after being introduced into it, drops the mask and He shows his true "biological face" ^{[24, p. 31]}.

The behavior of the microcosm and viruses, of course, is not theatrical, but it is adaptive, and this is important for research, since the techniques and means of adapting the microcosm resemble dramatic means, where there is a place for representation, mimicry, simulation, and influence, but on a biological level. The natural world helps to notice identical techniques of self-preservation and survival at different levels of living matter, which perhaps indicates the synchronicity of the evolutionary processes of living organisms as a whole.

Finally, analyzing the power and influence of emotions, fear becomes of particular interest for research ^{[14, pp. 46,47]}, since it is precisely "running away" from fear (from danger, illness, death) that has proved extremely productive in the development of imagination and, in general, the cultural world. Thanks to "escape", skills of adaptation to reality developed, as well as creative skills, when with the help of conspiracies, magical contracts with supernatural forces and, finally, the birth of a complex afterlife as a separate space suitable for life after life, existential issues were resolved, emotional tension was relieved, calmness and healing from ailments came, and dramatic, artistic, and "theatrical" abilities of a person, in turn, received impulses for development.

Having characterized the origins of "everyday theatricality", examples of the manifestation of "theatricality" in everyday life and its connection with the world of the psyche, it seems important to turn to philosophy in search of a potential problem field of the phenomenon.

Philosophical direction of research

The problematic field of "everyday theatricality", through which the "theatrical" nature of man is manifested, includes issues of terminology, genesis, content and morphology of the phenomenon. Given the blurred contours of the phenomenon of "theatricality", how can we terminologically define the adaptive nature of a person who "looks" like a theatrical one and uses "theatrical" means of expression to achieve pragmatic everyday goals? What is the existential connection between "everyday theatricality" and the phenomena of "illusion" (dreams, appearances), "the other", and "play"? What can be said about the structure of "everyday theatricality", the functions, types, and forms of the phenomenon? Is the theatrical nature of a person an innate property of the psyche or a property formed during life, thanks to socio-cultural patterns and traditions of communication?

Finally, why is a person theatrical? Is it possible to say that along with the intelligent man (homo sapiens), the man who plays (homo ludens), the man who reads (homo legens), the man who writes (homo scribensque) and the man who speaks (homo loquens) ^{[29, p. 63]}, there is a place for the theatrical man (homo theatralis)?

It is difficult to select material from the body of philosophical literature dealing with the problem of a person adapting to challenges in society with the help of artistic abilities. One way or another, most thinkers address the problem of a human actor in everyday life. Research interest, in particular, is aroused by the works of such authors as Aristotle, G. Hegel, J.-P. Sartre, F. Nietzsche, E. Fink, R. Kayua, J. Huizinga, N. Evreinov, E. Bern, I. Hoffman, Y.M. Lotman, F.I. Girenok and others.

In search of meaningful specifics of the "theatrical" nature of man, it is important to turn to classical works on "play" as an existential phenomenon (E. Fink, R. Kayua, J. Huizinga, N. Evreinov, E. Bern, etc.), since play and theatricality are extremely related. It is noteworthy that in the work "The Demon of Theatricality" (N. Evreinov), the author assumes, among other things, the biological basis of the "theatrical" nature of man, using the expression about the "theatrical instinct" inherent in man ^{[11, p. 13]}, but does not substantiate, however, this thesis.

Following Aristotle, the authors (E. Fink, R. Kayua, J. Huizinga, N. Evreinov, E. Bern) interpret imitation inherent in human nature as imitation, which "is inherent in humans since childhood, and they differ from other animals in that they are most capable of imitation, through which they acquire their first knowledge" ^{[1, p. 26]}. The authors R. Kayua ^{[15, pp. 57,58]} and E. Bern ^{[3, pp. 216-218]} also draw attention to the fact that animals also possess imitative abilities that contribute to obtaining the first knowledge, which perhaps demonstrates the elements of the evolutionary interrelationship of living things in principle.

The legacy of Yu.M. Lotman requires special attention, in whose works "theatricality" is interpreted from the standpoint of literary criticism, cultural studies, and semiotics. Noteworthy, in particular, is the idea that in the 19th century the theater actively invaded life and one could observe "examples of how people of the late 18th and early 19th centuries build their personal behavior, everyday speech, and ultimately their life fate according to literary and theatrical models..." ^{[18, p. 272]}. It should be noted that a separate scientific article, possibly several, will be devoted to the understanding of "theatricality" in the works of Yu.M. Lotman and other authors who have developed this issue in the mainstream of cultural studies, semiotics, philosophy of culture and art.

Thinking about the "theatrical" nature of man leads to a conversation about the "other" ^{[6, p. 163,164]}, about escapism and the phenomenon of fear, anxiety, and "abandonment" ^{[23, p. 219, 220]}, stimulating creative skills of escaping to better worlds (Zh. Sartre and others).

The problem of "illusion" (dreams) is of particular interest, since in philosophy a person often interprets the subject as inscribed in a hallucinating world (F.I. Girenok), in the world of "appearances" ^{[8, pp. 23, 36-39]}. When it comes to a "philosophically minded person," according to F. Nietzsche, the latter "even has a premonition that under this reality in which we live and exist lies a hidden, second reality, different in everything, and that, consequently, the first is an illusion..." ^{[20, pp. 40,42,52]}. He acts, he prescribes his own interpretations of events to the world of appearances, and "everyday theatricality" becomes a convenient tool in mastering the world of dreams.

It can be said that "theatrical" behavior is quite common in everyday communication and is not always recognized as theatrical. At the same time, communication patterns generally accepted in the social environment, widespread, popular and fairly stable behavioral models are involved. Thanks to the "everyday theatricality", emotional tension is relieved, since communication takes place in an understandable "language" of speech, artistic images, behaviors; predictable, to a certain extent, readable, reactions accepted and tacitly approved in society.

The phenomena of "play" and "everyday theatricality" are related, but as the "main phenomenon of being" (love, power, death, work, play) ^{[26, p. 340]} "play" is older. The game presupposes a great degree of inner freedom, but at the same time stability in following certain rules ^{[27, p. 56]}.

It is difficult to call "Everyday theatricality" a phenomenon with a genuine potential for freedom, since it is functionally focused on the processes associated with the adaptation and "grinding" of people in society. So, while outwardly demonstrating adherence to generally accepted rules and norms, people in communication often not only violate them, but manipulate the rules to achieve a specific result.

"Everyday theatricality" promotes a type of communication in which it becomes possible to communically "glide" through each other's images and representations without immersing oneself in the "other", since social role-playing interaction avoids sincerity.

In addition, in conditions of social turbulence, periodic states of existential uncertainty, both external and internal being, a person, thanks to his "theatrical" nature, is able every time to "invent" himself, "another", to look "different", according to the current proposed circumstances, thereby ensuring successful communication and self-realization in society.

Conclusions

1. This work suggests paying attention to three scientific areas in which the "theatrical" nature of man as a philosophical problem can be investigated. We are talking about anthropological, biological, psychological and philosophical areas. Given the interdisciplinary potential of philosophy, each of these areas can be useful in analyzing the genesis and problematic field of "everyday theatricality." Philosophical reflection is focused on characterizing the scientific potential of the proposed directions.

2. The anthropological direction of the study of the "theatrical" nature of man seems to be, to a certain extent, productive, since it helps to track and characterize the first (early) examples of the manifestation of "theatrical" behavior in everyday communication culture (in magical rituals, sacred actions of shamans, methods of healing the sick, and so on). Empirical material collected in the anthropological literature reveals the pronounced dramatic nature of human interaction, contributing to the consolidation of "everyday theatricality" in everyday communication culture.

3. The biological and psychological direction of the study of the "theatrical" nature of man seems relevant, since it helps to identify the connection of "theatricality" with the psyche, an element of which is presumably. In particular, within the framework of this direction, one can notice a special connection between biological, mental reflection and the reflection characteristic of "everyday theatricality." These reflection methods differ in appearance, but they are similar in function, since they act as regulators of adaptive behavior, whether at the biological or socio-cultural levels of life. Within the framework of the direction, one can note the special role of the emotion of "fear" (death), which affects the development of artistic, "theatrical" skills of a person of everyday life, since, in an attempt to "escape from death", a person developed creative imagination and "theatrical" techniques of "magical involvement" with existential challenges.

4. The philosophical direction of the study of the "theatrical" nature of man seems to be in demand, since it helps, using an interdisciplinary approach, to formulate key issues and the problematic field of "everyday theatricality" as a philosophical problem.

5. Within the framework of philosophical reflection on "everyday theatricality", one can note the stable connection of "theatricality" with "play" as the main phenomenon of being. In addition, philosophy allows us to raise the problem of "illusion", "seeming", "reverie" as a potential component of the "theatrical" nature of man. The problem of the "other" is also outlined as a complex problem in which "everyday theatricality" actively implements itself, contributing to a type of social communication in which it becomes possible to communically "glide" through images and representations of each other without deep immersion in the "other"; and the "theatrical" nature here is able to help a person. competently build images of the "other", look "different", providing predictable communication and sustainable interaction in a socio-cultural environment.

Conclusion

The problem of "everyday theatricality" seems to be a difficult but promising problem for research. The terminological ambiguity of the term "theatricality" dictates the special responsibility of searching for the semantic boundaries of "everyday theatricality" as a concept characterizing the "theatrical" nature of a person and his behavior in everyday communication culture.

The nature of the scientific problem is also evident in the fact that, being in plain sight, "everyday theatricality" remains quite difficult to study in view of its blurred contours as a phenomenon. For example, can we say that the "theatrical" nature of a person, which manifests itself in "everyday theatricality", is inherent in a person from birth or does it develop under the influence of the social environment? What is the specificity and its existential potential? What can be said about the structure and problem field of "everyday theatricality"?

An integrated approach is proposed as one of the possible solutions, including a number of research areas, such as anthropological, biological, psychological, and philosophical. These areas have sufficient scientific potential to understand the genesis, adaptive specifics of the "theatrical nature" of man and the problematic field of "everyday theatricality."

The proposed results of the work may be useful for philosophical sciences, human sciences, for the development of an interdisciplinary approach to the study of man as a complex, self-organizing system. The results of the work expand the understanding of man as a philosophical problem. The study is expected to continue.