Отечественная и зарубежная психология религии: параллели и пересечения в прошлом и настоящем - Татьяна Владимировна Малевич

parts. In the Preface possible ways of adaptation are considered. The first part includes the studies of religious experience. It begins with the article “Empirical research on religious expirience in psychology of religion: history and contemporary trends” by Tatiana Malevich. The given article presents theoretical and methodological reflections on the history of empirical studies of religious experience in psychology of religion and identifies the current trends in the field of research. The analysis shows that in the late 19th and the first quarter of the 20th century religious experience was considered as a core subject field of the psychology of religion, whereas in the 1930-50s the empirical study of religious experience (first in the United States and later in Europe) turned into a marginal and unpopular area of research. It wasn’t before the 1960s that massive empirical research on religious experience was resumed. From then onwards it has been developing in the following directions. The first one is research on the experiential dimension of religiosity as part of its multidimensional models in sociology of religion. The second one concentrates on the phenomenological analysis of first-hand descriptions of religious experience collected through questionnaires. The third one includes the development of psychometric scales to measure religious experience aiming at empirical testing of some of its conceptual models. Finally, the fourth one consists in experimental studies involving the induction of religious and mystical experiences in the laboratory and identification of their neurophysiological correlates. At the present time the psychology of religion seeks to design new tools for studying religious experiences and construct conceptual models suitable for testing under controlled conditions.

The second survey is “The Idea of Religious Experience of W. James in Russian Religious Studies: Pre-revolutionary and Soviet Periods of Reception” by Konstantin Antonov. The article examines a role which a discussion around book of American philosopher and psychologist W. James “Varieties of Religious Experience” played in development of Russian philosophy and psychology of religion. The author carries out an analytical review of Russian reception of philosophy and psychology of religion of James inasmuch they are connected with the concept of religious experience. The main attention is paid to reception of ideas of American philosopher in the beginning of 20th century and its continuation in Russian emigration. Author suggests short summaries of debates of James’s ideas in main Russian philosophical and theological periodicals: “Questions of Philosophy and Psychology”, “Logos”, “The Russian Thought”, “Theological Review”, “Faith and Reason” – and then points out those authors who presented their understanding of ideas of American philosopher outside periodical framework. Despite the fact that the reception as a whole had philosophical character (to develop psychology of religion “in James’s spirit” were ready mostly representatives of Ecclesiastical academies), one can say that in its framework growth of psychology of religion as a special field of research was outlined. And, what is even more important – psychologism as a special form of cognitive interest in the field of religious studies appeared. Not only philosophers and psychologists, but theologians as well learned to look on religion as a psychological phenomena, “experience”. And this concept step by step moved forward into the centre of psychological studying of religion as its own specific subject. In the article the main points of Soviet reception of the idea of religious experience of famous American philosopher and psychologist W. James are under discussion. In pre-war (1920-1930s) time an attention payed to James was too small. At post-war period the discussion becomes more intensive and divides into three channels: history of philosophy, “scientific atheism”, psychology. The research makes it possible to put in question discontinuity between pre-revolutionary and Soviet discourses about religion, growth of comparative autonomy of the humanities in the Soviet Union in 1970-1980s and its limits, role of standart patterns of polemic arguments, rhetoric figures, ideological cliches and (and mainly) the ethos of science in those original (not)meeting of soviet religious studies specialists, historians of philosophy and psychologists with the concept of “varieties of religious experience”.

Second part of the book is about psychoanalytic interpretation of religion in Europe and Russia. It starts with two articles: “Psychoanalytic theory in the psychology of religion” by Tatiana Folieva and “The Reception of Classical Psychoanalysis in the Russian Religious Thought and the Modern Psychoanalytic Theories of Religion” by Konstantin Antonov. The subject of the former study is three periods of investigation of psychoanalytic theories in the Russian tradition: the development of Russian psychoanalytic schools at the beginning of the 20th century, the descriptive analysis of the classics of psychoanalysis at the the Soviet period (60-80th), contemporary analytical stage. The author tries to show that psychoanalytic theories have a great empirical potential. At the letter work the author considers the principal moments of the understanding of religion in psychoanalysis as perceived by Russian thinkers of the first half and the middle of the 20th century. The author indicates the conditions and context of the perception of psychoanalysis in Russia in the late 19th and early 20th century, the main contiguity points shared by the psychoanalytic understanding of religion and its treatment by the Russian symbolists, mainly by Vyacheslav Ivanov. He proceeds to consider the perception and criticism of psychoanalysis offered by Russian thinkers of the first half and the middle of the 20th century: father P. Florensky, N. A. Berdyayev, S. L. Frank, B. P. Vysheslavtsev and S. A. Levitsky. The final part of the article contains conclusions bearing on the general meaning of this perception and its potential significance for the Russian psychology of religion. Beyond any doubt, Russian philosophers have managed to enrich their understanding of religion by making using of the attainments of psychoanalysis. They used productively even ideas conceived by the founder of psychoanalysis as instrument in criticizing religion. Alongside repeting the ideas common to the criticism of psychoanalysis, they put forward a number of original arguments proceeding from an immanent analysis of psychoanalytical ideas indicating the internal problems that exist in the psychoanalytical approach to religion. They also outlined ways of overcoming