The Phenomenon of Legal Awareness: Historical and Philosophical Reception in the Context of Educational Problems

Akimov Oleg Yur'evich ORCID: 0000-0003-0941-7382 PhD in Philosophy Leading Researcher of the Western Branch of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA) 236016, Russia, Kaliningrad region, Kaliningrad, Artillery str., 62 aktula1@gmail.com Other publications by this author

          The crisis phenomena characteristic of the development of modern civilization at the present time are not least due to the crisis of legal culture, expressed in the lack of legal awareness, that is, coordination between the fixation of the norms of positive law and their awareness and execution. This gives rise to the legal nihilism and indifferentism emphasized by many researchers ^{[1, p. 6]}, characteristic of modern culture and consisting in disrespect for the law caused by a lack of understanding of the essence of law and its connection with everyday human life.

In our opinion, one of the possibilities of solving this problem, or more precisely, a complex of problems, is a comprehensive theoretical reflection of legal consciousness, on the one hand as a concept, and on the other as a phenomenon of the realization of this concept in people's daily lives. This reflection requires the definition of the concept of "legal consciousness" as opposed to the concept of "law" and consideration of the possibilities of their interaction in different cultural contexts: legal, philosophical, social, educational.

    An analysis of the specialized literature, which presents the experience of such a definition, shows that the distinction between law and legal consciousness is possible only at an abstract purely logical level.  In the work of V. A. Rybakov "Legal consciousness: on the question of the concept" ^{[2, p. 23]}, a detailed definition of the definitions of the concept of "legal consciousness" in modern educational and specialized literature is given. The author identifies the definitions of legal consciousness as knowledge of law, as a reflection of legal reality in consciousness in the form of knowledge, as a person's attitude to the current law, as a perception (intellectual or emotional) of legal reality. The author adheres to the concept that legal reality is formed during the interaction of consciousness with reality as such; it is obvious that the author's position is determined by the Marxist thesis that being determines consciousness, respectively, reality (first of all, the material world) determines the legal validity as its manifestation. This concept, with its logical consistency, requires many additional definitions, for example, the definition of consciousness.

With a literal understanding of V.A. Rybakov's point of view, it turns out that legal reality arises as a reflection (more or less complex and complex)  in the human consciousness of reality as such. This definition is considered in our work as an example that explicates the complexity of the definition of legal consciousness. The main "problem" of this definition is, in our opinion, the impossibility of an "optimal" definition of legal consciousness, since it turns out to depend on what is understood in this case by law, reality, consciousness and their interaction. The author gives a definition of legal consciousness as a complex legal formation, including reflection, cognition and attitude ^{[2, c28]}. Consequently, the author understands legal consciousness as an expression of law, however, since law is also the result of the relationship of consciousness to reality, there is a kind of "vicious circle" when consciousness determines reality, and reality is consciousness and law, and vice versa. In accordance with this definition, law is not actually a special sphere, so its definition in consciousness occurs by analogy with other forms of knowledge, and thus it becomes difficult to determine the degree of formation of legal consciousness, its actual maturity.

 These definitions of legal consciousness are based on the definition of legal consciousness as knowledge of varying degrees of concreteness a priori or a posteriori in nature, but in any case abstract. The "compensation" for this abstraction is the concretization of the concept of "legal consciousness" in the humanities, primarily in philosophy, which allows us to separate legal consciousness as a concept from legal consciousness as a phenomenon of the realization of this concept and to highlight the special meanings of legal consciousness from the sphere of "pure" law.

An attempt of such a definition of legal consciousness was made in the work of A.N. Batsunov "The phenomenon of legal consciousness in a socio-philosophical perspective"^{[3, p. 161]}, where the author carries out the reception of the phenomenon of law in European philosophy. It should be noted that the author identifies law and legal consciousness, since legal consciousness is considered as a category immanent to the phenomenon of law. Legal consciousness thereby becomes a component of law as a special reality, which allows the author to avoid complex definitions of such concepts as "consciousness". Law as a special reality manifests itself in the material world in legal concepts, thus, as if initially forming the environment of its actualization. The proof of this thesis is for the author the initial conjugation of legal and philosophical discourse in European culture.

Since Antiquity (Plato and Aristotle), law has been the subject of philosophical reflection. A "full-scale" reflection of the phenomenon of law in European philosophy was carried out by I. Kant and G.V. F. Hegel. So I. Kant in his "Metaphysics of Morals" defines "law" and identifies different forms of law: initial, preventive, parental, differentiates the legal and non-legal state. Thus, I. Kant creates a semantic field of law as a concept, linking law with such general philosophical categories as "freedom", "law", "duty", "virtue", "necessity" and combining legal and ethical issues. It sets the semantic framework in which the phenomenon of law will be considered in European philosophy in the future.

G.V.F. Hegel, creating his "Philosophy of Law" and interpreting similar problems within the framework of his own teaching about the Spirit, follows the tradition of the European philosophy of law, developing the dialectic of law as freedom and law as law. It should be noted that A.N. Batsunov, analyzing the legal views of Kant and Hegel, mainly concerns the philosophy of law, that is, the metaphysical foundations of the phenomenon of law and the doctrine of law, and not the essence of legal consciousness as such. This is explained by the fact that the philosophy of law is, as a rule, the theory of law as a concept and does not concern legal practice in its empirical form, that is, the experience of implementing this theory.  In this regard, for Kant and Hegel, the explication of the concept of "law" as such in accordance with its subject a priori presupposes the existence of legal consciousness, that is, in the philosophy of law there is no gap between practice and theory of law, established by the humanities at the present time.  This allows A.N. Batsunov to consider the phenomenon of legal consciousness as "a semantic invariant of many concepts similar in meaning, such as law, legal culture", etc.^{[3, p. 166]}. This allows the author to reconstruct the phenomenon of legal consciousness as a whole, avoiding the already mentioned internal contradictions that arise when interpreting the particulars that make up this integrity.

A.N. Batsunov, actualizing the phenomenon of legal consciousness, identifies the legal, socio-cultural and philosophical levels of its comprehension ^{[3, p. 166]}. The legal level is associated with a more or less clear assimilation of legal norms as abstract knowledge, socio-cultural implies a broader and meaningful understanding of them, associated with the assimilation of not only legal norms as such, but also the cultural and social context associated with them; the philosophical level is based on the metaphysical "dimension" of the phenomenon of law. It should be noted that the exposition of the phenomenon of legal consciousness in the work of A.N. Batsunov is an inductive ascent from the particular to the general and from the simple to the complex, therefore, the initial - legal level of legal consciousness, that is, abstract external assimilation of legal norms becomes a condition for ascending to the next levels. This, in our opinion, is the "vulnerability" of the approach proposed by the author, since the general turns out to be conditioned by the particular, and the highest metaphysical level of legal consciousness is determined by the present state of knowledge about law. In the classical works on the philosophy of law "Metaphysics of Morals" by I. Kant, "Philosophy of Law" and "Philosophy of Spirit" by G.V.F. Hegel, we are talking about the reverse movement from the general to the particular, since the field of law is "subordinate" to them. In Kant it is conditioned by the principles of ethics, in Hegel it is incorporated in a special way into the sphere of the Spirit. This allows philosophers to consider the legal consciousness as a whole, in which the inconsistencies of individual elements (for example, the imperfection of the legal consciousness of individuals) is "compensated" by the legal consciousness as an ideal, the empirical unfolding of which already contains the specified whole as potency. Outside of the use of this "algorithm", the private (specific personal legal consciousness) turns out to be connected with the whole only externally (purely logically), and the ideal of legal consciousness thereby becomes unattainable.

In I. Kant's Metaphysics of Morals, the realization of this "unattainable" ideal is connected with the universal principle of law, which states that "any act is right which, or according to whose maxim, the freedom of arbitrariness of everyone is compatible with the freedom of everyone in accordance with universal law" ^{[4, p. 140]}. The universal law indicated by Kant is a categorical imperative calling for the moral maxim of a person's behavior to become universal, and refers to another person always as an end and never as a means. By imperative, Kant understands "a rule, the idea of which makes a subjectively random act necessary"^{[4, p. 130]}. The categorical imperative makes an act necessary for the sake of the act itself, regardless of any extraneous goal, that is, in itself, following the law in the true sense is an end in itself for Kant. It should be noted that the categorical imperative has a moral character according to Kant, but de facto it is a measure of legal consciousness, since it implements a person's attitude to "external" concrete laws, actualizing the internal law in his personality.  For Kant, following the internal law is connected with two important categories: the category of freedom and the category of duty. The fulfillment of the imperative is the fulfillment of a moral duty, fulfilling which, regardless of any external pressure, the subject realizes his freedom, that is, for Kant, if we understand his teaching in the absolute (high and abstract) sense, to be a person means to have a sense of justice, that is, to impute to himself the fulfillment of his duty as freedom.  Kant distinguishes such performance of duty from its performance for non-moral external motives of servility (duty of service), legality (external formal adherence to the letter of the law) and loyalty (execution of the law for non-moral reasons in order to receive praise from other people). In order to have such a sense of justice, a person needs ethical autonomy, that is, absolute independence of judgment, which is impossible in an empirical world where a person is dependent and limited. In this case, Kant admits a paradox: the norm of legal consciousness, that is, not just knowledge of duty, but its free fulfillment, is imputed to a person, determining his autonomous status; thus, the legal consciousness potentially inherent in a person is actualized through imputation, actually becoming the norm of behavior and making a person a free being.  Such a form of correlation of legal consciousness and personality, when legal consciousness is attributed to a person regardless of external circumstances, as if being its potency, is characteristic of European and domestic philosophy of law, taking into account different nuances characteristic of the teachings of a particular thinker, is found in Kant, Hegel, I.A. Ilyin, etc.

For G.V.F. Hegel, law is the sphere of the objective Spirit, one of the forms of the unfolding of the Absolute Spirit on the way from being-in-itself to being-for-itself. It should be noted that according to Hegel, law, like all other aspects of the existence of the world, unfolds immanently to the Spirit, being its or different sides, for example, a person is a subjective spirit, and law is an objective spirit. In-itself, the being of the objective spirit is manifested in Hegel in the fact that "the free objective will considers itself as a set of separate private wills; its unity with the private will, absolutely objective in its form, according to Hegel is a law"^{[5, p. 327]}. The existence of free will is not only a legal right for the thinker, but also a right as a general concept ^{[5, p. 327]}. Its definitions in the application to the subjective will are duties that the philosopher understands as a form of universal freedom^{[5, p. 327]}, in accordance with the internal dialectic of the will, law, considering itself as universal, actualizes itself thereby as a duty; thus, the reality of law becomes in Hegel a prototype of the realized legal consciousness, since it is the right that posits the philosopher perceives himself as a duty, removes the limitations of the individual will and actualizes its freedom, while the right realized in a purely subjective form as possession is perceived by the philosopher as an appearance of freedom. G.V.F. Hegel resolves the contradiction between law as an abstract concept and the realization of law in reality, (according to Hegel, the right realized as a legal consciousness is truly valid right). The peculiarity of G.V.F. Hegel's "approach" is the understanding of law as a concept, the validity of which is a potential goal for law given in external experience as a phenomenon, that is, the legal consciousness given in the idea as reality, thereby determines the legal consciousness as a phenomenon actualized in the material world. With such a formulation of the problem of legal consciousness, there is no need to find a balance between law, consciousness, knowledge, reflection, since legal consciousness as an idea already contains all these elements as realized. This disposition of "legal consciousness" raises fundamentally new questions related to the boundaries of the realizability of the phenomenon of legal consciousness in the material world, combining different aspects and possibilities of interpretation of the phenomenon of legal consciousness in the philosophy of law as part of philosophical knowledge and philosophy of law as a legal discipline, these issues were investigated by V.S. Nersesyants ^{[6, p. 320]}.

The scientist believed that most of the philosophical receptions of law, including the works of Kant and Hegel and the conceptually related works of domestic researchers of the philosophy of law I.A. Ilyin, V.S. Solovyov, etc. are based on the fact that natural law and the legal consciousness associated with it determines positive (positive) law, that is, valid legal norms characteristic of of a certain country or culture, and the empirical (empirically given) manifestation of law is the law. The norms of positive law, limited to the purely legal sphere (abstract professional knowledge of laws), are the sphere of the special, and the philosophy of law, which gives a metaphysical basis to the special, is the sphere of the universal. Legal consciousness in its concreteness is thus a form of transition from the universal to the special and from the special to the universal, removing their contradictions. V.S. Nersesyants believed that neither the legal nor the philosophical approach alone exhausts the whole complexity of the relationship of law and legal consciousness, and the resolution of related problems depends on the level of general and right culture in country. The researcher actually deduces these problems from the context of specific sciences (jurisprudence and philosophy), introducing them into the context of general culture, re-posing the issues that philosophers have been dealing with since ancient times (the relationship of law and human will, which the law should affect, as well as the boundaries of this impact), thereby the author recognizes that philosophy and jurisprudence needs not only a detailed study and convergence of positions, but also a common project of philosophical and legal doctrine that brings these positions closer in the context of culture.

In our opinion, such a doctrine is the doctrine of legal consciousness by I. A. Ilyin, developed in his work "On the essence of Legal Consciousness". It should be noted that I.A. Ilyin's teaching on legal consciousness is characterized by integrity, since the thinker combines philosophical, legal and general cultural aspects in it. The philosophical aspect of this teaching is that it contains the receptions of the understanding of legal consciousness outlined by I. Kant (actualization of the autonomy of the subject) and G.V.F. Hegel (theory of law as the immanent side of the objective spirit), creating on their basis their own "project" of the philosophy of law as the realization of legal consciousness. The legal aspect is that I.A. Ilyin takes into account real law enforcement, exploring the psychology of the criminal and actualizing the difference between guilt and crime, which is difficult to express in purely legal terms. The general cultural aspect is actualized by the thinker in his interpretation of experience as a universal criterion for the realizability and realization of legal consciousness, this allows Ilyin to assert that legal consciousness (the elementary distinction between good and evil) is inherent by nature to all people ^{[7, p. 21]}. The experience according to Ilyin allows a person as a spirit ^{[7, p. 50]} to creatively realize himself, revealing in the world the spiritual content that is a priori characteristic of everything that exists, therefore, the spirit as a creative force of the soul, realized in aesthetics as beauty, in ethics as virtue, in epistemology as truth ^{[7, c22]}, is actualized in jurisprudence as a sense of justice.

The common moment of the realization of man as a spirit in all these areas is the pursuit of the good as the focus of the highest perfection, thanks to this, man implements the law of divinity in the world. This statement of the thinker is a periphrasis of G.V.F. Hegel's statement that God is his own absolute law of the spirit. This formulation of the problem allows the thinker, on the one hand, to consider legal consciousness as something empirically given and already implemented in the system of positive law, and on the other hand, to understand positive law as the potency of natural law and "normal legal consciousness". Therefore, the definitions of legal consciousness given by the thinker can be conditionally divided into two groups from the point of view of their content: definitions that reduce legal consciousness to metaphysical reality, for example, legal consciousness as the will to law or legal consciousness as the will to spirit ^{[7, p. 40]} or definitions that characterize legal consciousness from the point of view of law enforcement practice (legal consciousness as ensuring peaceful and fair cohabitation of people). The common point of these definitions is the creative attitude of a person to legal consciousness, according to which the realization of legal consciousness is not limited to the assimilation of positive law, being an exposition of the spiritual essence of legal consciousness (natural law) associated with the development of human personality as a desire for goodness, justice, truth and beauty. The assimilation of positive law, not accompanied by personal development, leads to legal relativism, that is, the use of legal norms as "external" tools without proper awareness ^{[7, p. 23]}, since the actions of each person are a priori the realization of his personal legal consciousness.

I.A. Ilyin believed that natural legal awareness is a prototype of positive law, but its implementation depends on the general culture of human perception of positive law, that is, natural legal awareness and positive law actually define each other. Natural or normal legal consciousness cannot be realized in reality, being an ideal or value for it, it is realized in the norms of positive law that have a heteronomous character, that is, limiting the will of a person and forcing him to comply with the law with the help of external force, for example, the threat of punishment.

According to I.A. Ilyin, law does not obey natural necessity, that is, both normal legal consciousness and positive law (laws) do not affect a person with such force that the laws of nature affect him. Therefore, positive law, being an expression of natural legal consciousness in history, exists due to the fact that the distinction between just and unjust is inherent in human nature, and normal legal consciousness is supported by positive law limiting the arbitrariness of individual people. I.A. Ilyin describes this state of affairs, arguing that "positive law becomes a vital force in the legal consciousness, and the legal consciousness acquires a substantive basis in law" ^{[7, c41]}. Thus, a person, "seeing" the meaning and value of a positive right, imputes it to himself as an obligation"^{[7, p. 42]}, and legal consciousness, as realized in real life, becomes a force, that is, an analogue of the law of nature, which is freely accepted by the subject. This free acceptance is for the thinker the acceptance by the subject of spiritual being. On the basis of spiritual existence, legal consciousness becomes an "objectively significant rule of social behavior" ^{[7, p. 49]}, and there is a transition from the metaphysics of law to legal practice that determines the actual observance of laws. This process is endless, since humanity, according to Ilyin, is "a multitude of natural law circles" ^{[7, p. 55]}. In the center of each circle is spiritual life, but outwardly they are connected to each other only by the unity of existence, each person, being a closed spiritual-bodily center, is connected to other people only outwardly. This explains the struggle for existence and the violation of the rights of other people. The "overcoming" of this struggle is feasible only as mutual recognition by people of each other's autonomy, that is, the rights and obligations that realize the freedom of each person, therefore, natural legal consciousness is "the relation of a person's will to the goal of law" ^{[7, p. 75]}.

This goal is achieved thanks to the axioms-values of legal consciousness: self-esteem, self-restraint, respect and trust ^{[7, p. 83]}, defining legal consciousness as a reality governed by spiritual laws: the law of spiritual dignity, the law of autonomy and the law of mutual recognition ^{[7, p. 151]}. The axiom of autonomy assumes that a person's spiritual life and legal consciousness as its manifestation are absolutely independent of external factors, that is, a person freely accepts his rights and duties as a spiritual being. The axiom of spiritual dignity presupposes that a person is endowed with the ability to inner self-affirmation and self-binding, that is, he is aware of his own autonomy not only as a right, but also as a duty towards other people ^{[7, p. 181]}. The axiom of spiritual recognition presupposes recognition of legal consciousness, recognition of oneself as a spirit, that is, recognition of one's own autonomy and dignity, as well as recognition of the autonomy and dignity of another subject. A person, recognizing these values, comes out of his own self-closure, that is, remaining limited, actually recognizes the rights of other people as his own, with the help of which the main problem of legal consciousness is solved - the problem of transforming abstract knowledge about positive law into a conscious attitude to it and acting in accordance with its norms.

I.A. Ilyin emphasized that legal consciousness as the creative life of the human spirit concerns not only the intellectual sphere of the human being, but also his emotional sphere, upbringing, general culture, psychological characteristics, thereby preparing opportunities for the interpretation of legal consciousness not only as a metaphysical theory of law, but also as a practice of a decent human life. This practice involves, in particular, the moral and psychological education of people and social groups, the actualization of legal awareness as special psychological, educational and educational attitudes of individual behavior that contribute to the genuine realization of spiritual dignity and independence. In this regard, the task of translating the theoretical attitudes we have listed, developed by the philosophy of law, into a practical plane, their concretization in relation to the current state of society becomes urgent. A prerequisite for such concretization is, in our opinion, the integration of different approaches in order to show the antinomic nature of legal consciousness as a phenomenon, when the contradictions of different definitions emphasize its essential connection with human existence as a subject of study of the humanities.  

In V.N. Zhukov's work "Legal Consciousness: a Philosophical analysis", legal consciousness is considered in the context of the unsolvable problems of the interaction of being and consciousness, the existence of God, which constitute the subject of dispute between the materialistic and idealistic understanding of the world. The author, defining consciousness from the point of view of the Marxist theory of reflection, nevertheless believes that since consciousness is indefinable, legal consciousness as a phenomenon can be interpreted from both materialistic and idealistic positions^{[8, p. 18]}. V. N. Zhukov gives two dialectically interrelated definitions of legal consciousness: general - "legal consciousness as a form of social consciousness in the process of political and legal activity of people"^{[8, p. 19]} and private "legal consciousness as a set of rational ideas and feelings expressing people's attitude to political and legal reality, as well as the way of existence of political and legal reality"^{[8, p. 19]}. It should be noted that the author, following G. V. F. Hegel and I.A. Ilyin, understands any creative change in reality by activity.  The first definition, if we consider it in the context of I.A. Ilyin's views, refers to the spiritual life of a person as a whole, and the second to its specific manifestations in the life of an individual. The first characterizes to a greater extent the objective, and the second - the subjective "side" of reality. These definitions, understood in the broad context of culture, make it possible to consider legal consciousness from the point of view of disciplines interpreting the theory of activity: pedagogy and psychology. On the other hand, the author, giving such a definition of legal consciousness, in our opinion, separates legal consciousness (the first definition) from legal consciousness (the second definition).

In the specialized literature (primarily legal), these two concepts are identified or not differentiated from each other with a sufficient degree of certainty. Based on the analysis of fundamental research by I. Kant, G.V.F. Hegel, I.A. Ilyin, it can be concluded that legal consciousness is generic, and legal consciousness is a specific concept, but since the generic concept of "legal consciousness" is abstract, the specific concept of "legal consciousness" can be considered as its content. In this regard, the life of legal consciousness is its transition to legal consciousness, fixed in various forms of culture of the individual and society, as well as related to the practical study of these forms in the humanities- pedagogy and psychology; therefore, in the works considering the practical aspects of the formation of legal consciousness in the context of education and upbringing of the individual, it is mainly about legal consciousness as the form of realization of legal awareness in relation to a specific group of people. This also applies to the formation of legal awareness of law students in the process of their professional training, upbringing and education.

N.N. Satanina and N.N. Yarushkin in the work "Peculiarities of legal consciousness of law students", carrying out psychological reflection of legal consciousness on the basis of the idea of unity of consciousness and activity, reflected in the works of leading Soviet psychologists L.S. Vygodsky, S.L. Rubinstein and A.N. Leontiev, consider legal consciousness as a superstructure, for which consciousness is the basis. The common point of this interpretation can be called its connection with the Marxist theory of consciousness as a reflection of reality, as well as the reduction of a person's psychological states to his mental states of varying degrees of complexity and complexity. The authors analyze the definition of legal consciousness as "a form of social consciousness reflecting the relations regulated by the norms of law conditioned by the material conditions of human existence"^{[9, p. 52]} and the definition of legal consciousness as "a set of beliefs, norms of emotions, moods expressing the attitude of the individual to the current or desired law"^{[9, p. 52-53]}. The first definition is generic, and the second is specific, that is, the first refers to legal consciousness, and the second to the legal consciousness of the individual, but since in the first definition legal consciousness is reduced to law, and law, in turn, to the material conditions of human existence, that is, to being, it is perceived as a reflection of being, becoming a priori non-integral, that is, we are not talking about the definition of legal consciousness, but about the definition of legal consciousness, due to its external attitude to the environment, being, and the human psyche.

The authors, based on the analysis of special literature, distinguish the cognitive and regulatory functions of legal consciousness ^{[9, p. 53]}. The cognitive function provides cognition of social and legal existence, and the regulatory function allows using this knowledge to influence the behavior of the individual. It should be noted that the authors' point of view, suggesting a direct relationship between knowledge and behavior, is based on the already mentioned idea of Soviet psychologists about the identity of activity and consciousness, suggesting that knowledge of the norm causes the desired behavior, which does not always correspond to reality.  Resolving this contradiction, N.N.Satonina and N.N. Yarushkin consider the distinction between empirical and theoretical legal consciousness accepted in the special literature ^{[9, pp. 53-54]}. Empirical legal consciousness is based on everyday experience of interpretation, legal norms, and theoretical on their regular study and reflection based on theoretical knowledge. This definition, as well as the already mentioned differentiation of the functions of legal consciousness subordinates the holistic nature of legal consciousness to specific situations in which not legal consciousness as such is realized, namely the legal consciousness of an individual, in whose perception the empirical and theoretical levels of legal consciousness are actualized as a whole, it is no coincidence that according to I. A. Ilyin, normal legal consciousness is set by the spiritual life of the individual, its internal the world.

The authors come to the conclusion that legal awareness as a set of knowledge and skills of a law student is not limited to cognitive and regulatory functions and empirical and theoretical levels, but becomes the result of professional education of a person continuing throughout his life. It should be noted that the research of N.N. Satanina and N.N. Yarushkin poses an important problem - the interpretation of legal consciousness in pedagogy and psychology, when the theoretical justification of the prerequisites for the formation of legal consciousness precedes its actual realization, predetermining its structure, while de facto this structure is predestined by the spiritual life of the individual, and interaction with the external world determines its features in the historical and social context.

To create adequate conditions for this realization is the task of an educational environment that promotes the spiritual growth of the individual.  In this regard, the problem of the correlation of various components of the educational environment and the features of its structure, considered in the work of M.A. Grigorieva "The concept of "educational environment" and models of educational environments in psychology", is significant. It should be noted that the study of the educational environment raises the same questions as the previously considered relationship of law and legal consciousness, first of all, the question of the relationship of consciousness and activity and the problem of the functioning of consciousness as an interiorization - the transfer of knowledge and actions from the external plane of reality to the internal plane of personality. For interiorization, an environment is necessary, which L.S. Vygotsky defined as a cultural and historical reality integrating the experience of human development and consisting of objects of importance to a person ^{[10, p. 3]}. The upbringing and education of a person is carried out with the help of reflexes that respond to stimuli-the values of external objects. Education is, in this context, the assimilation of these stimuli.  The materialistic position of L.S. Vygotsky resembles the position of I.A. Ilyin, who wrote about the instinct of legal consciousness given in the experience of any person, since the values of stimuli are not taken directly from the environment, but are already present in the human consciousness, therefore, according to L.S. Vygotsky, the personality not only passively adapts to the environment, but also rebuilds it.

According to A.N. Leontiev, any relationship of an individual with the environment is a subject activity. Meaning is the result of an individual's interaction with specific objects in conditions of social mediation ^{[10, p. 4]}. According to A.N. Leontiev, the structure of external activity repeats the structure of mental processes, that is, the individual's reaction depends on the initially given scheme of mental life.

The theoretical attitudes underlying the interpretation of the environment by Soviet psychologists (the theory of consciousness as activity) were subsequently reinterpreted and transformed by V. V. Rubtsov, V.A. Yasvin, V.I. Slobodchikov, V.I. Panov. The common point of their interpretation can be considered a statement of the dialogical nature of the environment, the structure of which, as a rule, is reduced to a complex interaction of the Self and the other; in this regard, the formation of an educational environment is an important condition for the formation of legal consciousness interacting with the world of other people, their rights and obligations and accepting this world as their own.

The communicative-oriented model of the educational environment developed by V.V. Rubtsov can be presented in the conditions of a university as a student-teacher-a group of students. V.V. Rubtsov emphasized that communication between participants in the educational process is more complex and diverse than the presented scheme. In the ecological and personal model of the educational environment presented by V.A. Yasvin^{[10, p. 4]} transferred the interaction between subjects to the inner plane of the personality with the help of two pairs of bipolar constructs: freedom-dependence and activity-passivity. The first vector of interaction reflects the inner plan of the personality: its motivation, emotional attitudes. The second vector is related to the interaction of the subject and the environment. The coincidence of these vectors gives a realized educational environment, which belongs to one of four types: dogmatic (dependence plus passivity); career (activity plus dependence); serene (passivity plus freedom); creative (activity plus freedom). In relation to the educational process, this scheme can be presented in the following form: when the dogmatic educational environment prevails, we are talking about passive and not fully conscious assimilation of legal knowledge, which does not contribute to the formation of the student's legal consciousness. In a career educational environment, we are talking about the assimilation of legal knowledge with an extraneous goal, far from the goals of law, which, according to Kant, corresponds to an extra-moral consciousness based on servility, legality or loyalty. With this assimilation of knowledge, the student at best becomes a professional in his field, devoid of personal moral sense of justice. With a serene educational environment, the student develops an empirical legal consciousness, which is of a random nature, which does not contribute to either personal or professional growth. In a creative educational environment, the personal and professional beginnings of education are in harmony with each other, which makes it possible for a student to form a normal sense of justice. It should be noted that these vectors of the formation of the educational environment do not reflect the full variety of specific situations, setting the general direction of the educational process and allowing you to model new situations or find new meanings of familiar situations. 

Model of the educational environment V.A. Yasvina makes it possible to return from the actual educational space to the space of culture, which is carried out in the anthropological and psychological model of the educational environment proposed by V.I. Slobodchikov ^{[10, p. 7]}, based on anthropocentrism, when the subjects of the educational environment are considered not only based on the psychological or educational context, but also from the context of culture as a whole. The educational space becomes a meeting place and dialogical contradictions of the individual and society; their developing interaction creates an educational environment.

The educational environment cultivates the values of personality: independence, identity, self-awareness, self-action, individuality and uniqueness as the foundations of personal and social existence;   according to V.I. Slobodchikov, the environment presupposes a co-existential community of people, in which a person, in interaction with the environment, implements a personal way of being in the utmost openness to Another (God or the world of other people). The value foundations of human existence, revealed by V.I. Slobodchikov in the language of psychology and pedagogy, correlate with the axioms of legal consciousness developed by I.A. Ilyin. In this sense, the anthropological-psychological model of the educational environment can be considered as the ideal of professional education and upbringing, since it assumes three basic forms of interaction: man-nature; man-society and man-culture, where the third form is perceived as the main one.

The ecopsychological model of the educational environment proposed by V.I. Panov ^{[10, p. 8]}, based on a combination of ecopsychological and psychodidactic principles and taking into account the abilities and personal characteristics of individuals, is a combination of personal and activity approaches, when the development of abilities is aimed at their self-realization in the educational space. The environmental friendliness of the educational environment is manifested in the fact that it develops not only cognitive, but also emotional-volitional, spiritual-moral and personal spheres of consciousness, that is, the subject is represented in the educational environment not only as a carrier of certain knowledge, but also as an individual who is able to realize this knowledge and develop in the process of their realization. The structure of the educational environment according to V. I. Panov includes activity, communicative and spatial-subject components. The activity component contributes to the arbitrariness and awareness of performing various types of activities, mainly new to the subject. The communicative component is associated with the development of information in the process of interpersonal communication. The spatial-subject component assumes consideration of the organization of the learning space (place) and the specific situation. The purpose of the educational environment is to reconstruct the real life situation of an individual in its uniqueness, in connection with which the following types of environmental interactions are possible: subject-object- pedagogical influence; subject-subject and jointly- subject- pedagogical interaction; subject-generative-pedagogical assistance. Based on these types of environmental interaction, it is possible to model the mutual activity of the environment and the individual in a specific situation when the environment is not abstract, but is represented by other individuals (teachers, comrades) as a confrontation (the environment does not favor the development of the individual's abilities); cooperation (the environment promotes the development of abilities) and coexistence (the individual and the environment are neutral with respect to each other to a friend).

M.V. Grigorieva emphasizes that the characteristic feature of the listed models of educational environments is dynamism - the desire to take into account the situation of the individual's development in all its originality, and the disadvantage is determinism, when the actual development of a person obeys pre-modeled goals ^{[10, p. 9]}.

An adequate and value-filled existence of a person in an educational environment requires a normal sense of justice, that is, an instinctive distinction between good and evil, this is the basis of a person's ability to accept the achievements of a culture that is historically, personally and socially actualized, the realization of which is the legal consciousness of the individual, inextricably linked with the legal consciousness of his time and his country, enshrined in traditions and values.