How does society influence a person? We need a literary example. Not from Oblomov

FIPI commentary on the topic “Man and Society” :
"For topics in this direction, the view of a person as a representative of society is relevant. Society largely shapes the individual, but the individual is also capable of influencing society. The topics will allow us to consider the problem of the individual and society from different angles: from the point of view of their harmonious interaction, complex confrontation or irreconcilable conflict. It is equally important to think about the conditions under which a person must obey social laws, and society must take into account the interests of each person. Literature has always shown interest in the problem of the relationship between man and society, the creative or destructive consequences of this interaction for the individual and for human civilization. "

Recommendations for students:
The table presents works that reflect any concept related to the direction “Man and Society”. You DO NOT need to read all of the works listed. You may have already read a lot. Your task is to revise your reading knowledge and, if you discover a lack of arguments within a particular direction, fill in the existing gaps. In this case, you will need this information. Take it as a guide to huge world literary works. Please note: the table shows only a portion of the works that contain the problems we need. This does not mean at all that you cannot make completely different arguments in your work. For convenience, each work is accompanied by small explanations (third column of the table), which will help you navigate exactly how, through which characters, you will need to rely on literary material(the second mandatory criterion when assessing a final essay)

An approximate list of literary works and carriers of problems in the direction of "Man and Society"

“Man and Society” is one of the topics of the final essay on literature for graduates of 2020. From what positions can these two concepts be considered in the work?

For example, you can write about the individual and society, about their interaction, both about agreement and about opposition. The approximate ideas that may be heard in this case are varied. This is a person as a part of society, the impossibility of his existence outside of society, and the influence of society on something connected with a person: his opinion, tastes, life position. You can also consider the confrontation or conflict between an individual and society; in this case, it would be useful to give examples from life, history or literature in your essay. This will not only make the work less boring, but also give you a chance to improve your grade.

Another option for what to write about in an essay is the ability or, conversely, the inability to devote one’s life to public interests, philanthropy and its opposite - misanthropy. Or, perhaps, in your work you will want to consider in detail the issue of social norms and laws, morality, the mutual responsibility of society to man and man to society for everything past and future. An essay devoted to man and society from a state or historical perspective, or the role of the individual (concrete or abstract) in history, will also be interesting.

Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" is a socio-psychological novel written in the 19th century. In the work, the author touches on a number of social and philosophical problems, including issues of human interaction with society. The main character of the novel, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, is an “extra person” who does not know how to adapt to a new, rapidly changing world, to change himself and his views for the sake of a bright future. That is why one of the most acute conflicts in the work is the opposition to the passive, inert hero of an active society, in which Oblomov cannot find a worthy place for himself.

What does Oblomov have in common with “extra people”?

In Russian literature, this type of hero as an “extra person” appeared in the early 20s of the 19th century. This character was characterized by alienation from the usual noble environment and, in general, the entire official life of Russian society, since he felt boredom and his superiority (both intellectual and moral) over the others. The “superfluous person” is filled with mental fatigue, can talk a lot but do nothing, and is very skeptical. In this case, the hero is always the heir good condition, which he, however, does not try to increase.
And indeed, Oblomov, having inherited a larger estate from his parents, could easily have settled matters there long ago so that he could live in complete prosperity with the money he received from the farm. However, mental fatigue and boredom overwhelming the hero prevented him from starting any business - from the banal need to get out of bed to writing a letter to the headman.

Ilya Ilyich does not associate himself with society, which Goncharov vividly depicted at the beginning of the work, when visitors come to Oblomov. Each guest for the hero is like a cardboard decoration with which he practically does not interact, putting a kind of barrier between others and himself, covering himself with a blanket. Oblomov does not want to go on visits like others, to communicate with hypocritical and uninteresting people who disappointed him even during his service - when he came to work, Ilya Ilyich hoped that everyone there would be the same friendly family as in Oblomovka, but he encountered with a situation where every person is “for himself.” Discomfort, the inability to find one’s social calling, the feeling of uselessness in the “neo-Oblomov” world leads to the hero’s escapism, immersion in illusions and memories of Oblomov’s wonderful past.

In addition, the “extra” person always does not fit into his time, rejecting it and acting contrary to the rules and values ​​dictating to him the system. Unlike Pechorin and Onegin, who gravitate towards the romantic tradition, always striving forward, ahead of their time, or the character of the enlightenment Chatsky, rising above a society mired in ignorance, Oblomov is an image of the realistic tradition, a hero striving not in front, for transformations and new discoveries (in society or in his soul), to a wonderful distant future, but focused on the past that is close and important to him, “Oblomovism.”

Love of the "extra person"

If in the matter of time orientation Oblomov differs from the “extra heroes” who preceded him, then in matters of love their fates are very similar. Like Pechorin or Onegin, Oblomov is afraid of love, afraid of the fact that he may change and become different or negatively influence his beloved - even to the point of degradation of her personality. On the one hand, parting with lovers is always a noble step on the part of the “extra hero”, on the other hand, it is a manifestation of infantilism - for Oblomov it was an appeal to Oblomov’s childhood, where everything was decided for him, they took care of him and everything was allowed.

The “superfluous man” is not ready for fundamental, sensual love for a woman; what is important to him is not so much the real beloved, but rather a self-created, inaccessible image - we see this both in Onegin’s feelings for Tatyana that flared up years later, and in illusory, “spring” feelings Oblomov to Olga. The “superfluous person” needs a muse - beautiful, unusual and inspiring (for example, like Pechorin’s Bella). However, not finding such a woman, the hero goes to the other extreme - he finds a woman who would replace his mother and create the atmosphere of distant childhood.
Oblomov and Onegin, who are different at first glance, equally suffer from loneliness in the crowd, but if Evgeny does not give up social life, then for Oblomov the only way out is to immerse himself in himself.

Is Oblomov a superfluous person?

The “superfluous man” in Oblomov is perceived by other characters differently than similar heroes in previous works. Oblomov is a kind, simple, honest person who sincerely wants quiet, calm happiness. He is attractive not only to the reader, but also to the people around him - it’s not for nothing that his friendship with Stolz has not stopped since his school years and Zakhar continues to serve the master. Moreover, Olga and Agafya sincerely fell in love with Oblomov precisely for his spiritual beauty, dying under the pressure of apathy and inertia.

What is the reason that from the very appearance of the novel in print, critics defined Oblomov as a “superfluous person,” because the hero of realism, unlike the characters of romanticism, is a typified image that combines the features of an entire group of people? By portraying Oblomov in the novel, Goncharov wanted to show not just one “extra” person, but an entire social stratum of educated, wealthy, intelligent, sincere people who could not find themselves in the rapidly changing, new Russian society. The author emphasizes the tragedy of the situation when, unable to change with circumstances, such “Oblomovs” slowly die, continuing to hold tightly to long-gone, but still important and soul-warming memories of the past.

It will be especially useful for 10th graders to familiarize themselves with the above arguments before writing an essay on the topic “Oblomov and the “extra people”.”

Work test

I. A. Goncharov in his novel “Oblomov” showed the society of the mid-19th century, then
Russia was at the end of serfdom. Trade and industry developed in our country, there were many educated and smart people. These include the main characters of the novel: Stolz and Oblomov. They are connected by old friendship, they are educated, thinking and feeling people. But, despite their friendship, Oblomov and Stolz are two completely different people in character and worldview, and let’s look at their differences. Oblomov is a meek, soft, dreamy, trusting and gentle nature, in short, a “pigeon soul.” Oblomov cannot stand up for himself when Tarantiev and Mukhoyarov are pumping money out of him. He also likes to dream about how he will arrange life on his estate, but for several years he has not been able to get together and do this. Stolz is distinguished by energy and willpower. For him, what he said means he did it. Andrei Ivanovich made his way into high society from among the commoners, and this requires considerable will. Oblomov is devoid of complacency and ambition, in him the heart prevails over the mind. Ilya Ilyich understands that he leads a miserable lifestyle, but he can’t do anything about it. Stolz is a rational, calculating nature. He is an entrepreneur, and without rationality and prudence in business you will never make money. Oblomov is very skeptical about the life of business people: “Look where the center around which all this revolves,” he says in a conversation with Stolz. Oblomov is inclined to philosophical reflections about the high purpose of man. And therefore he does not move in secular society, where
everything, in his opinion, is boring and mundane. Stolz is distinguished by his practical mind. He does not indulge in meaningless reasoning and daydreaming. Oblomov and Stolz lead completely different lifestyles. Oblomov is distinguished by idleness and passivity. He sleeps for a long time and does not get up from the sofa, does not go anywhere, is too lazy to even read. Stolz, on the contrary, does not sit still: “He came for a week on business, then to the village, then to Kyiv, then God knows where.” Nature showed Oblomov the only goal of life: life as it lived in Oblomovka, where they were afraid of news, traditions were strictly observed; books and newspapers were not recognized at all. Stolz, on the contrary, says that work is the main thing
in a person’s life: “Work is the image, content and purpose of life,” Stolz says to Oblomov. Oblomov grew up in the village of Oblomovka, where traditions were respected sacredly, where Ilya Ilyich was protected from everything and they tried to make sure he didn’t think about anything. Stolz grew up in a family where he was forced to work and study hard. His parents took little care of him, and he grew up in a constant and difficult struggle with life. The meeting with Olga Ilyinskaya changed Oblomov for a while. Under the influence of a feeling of love, incredible transformations occur to him: a greasy robe is abandoned, Oblomov gets out of bed as soon as he wakes up, reads books, looks through newspapers, he is energetic and active. But love, which carries within itself the need for action and self-improvement, is doomed in Oblomov’s case. Olga demands too much from Oblomov, and Ilya Ilyich cannot stand such a stressful life and gradually breaks up with her. When Stolz finds out this, he allows his own feelings to manifest themselves, and at the end of the novel we find Andrei Ivanovich and Olga Sergeevna husband and wife. Goncharov treats the two main characters of his work differently. The author has a kind attitude towards Oblomov - while denying the foundations of his life. The writer has an impartial attitude towards Stolz; he does not condemn, but also does not approve of the lifestyle that Andrei Ivanovich leads.
So, we have traced how the main characters of the novel differ, and now we can draw a conclusion. Stolz is a man of the new capitalist era, which began in Russia in the mid-19th century. Oblomov is a product and consequence of Oblomovism, a historical type, a bearer of noble culture. Goncharov depicted the tragedy of a typical
Russian character, devoid romantic features and not tinged with gloom, but nevertheless found himself on the sidelines of life through his own fault and through the fault of society. Roman I.A. Goncharov was written more than one hundred and forty years ago, but the types he created still remain modern, and now there are many Stolts and Oblomovs in Russia.
Each of us can recognize the traits of Oblomov or Stolz in ourselves. If they ask me which type of people is better, I will answer this way: “For all that Oblomov is pleasant to me as a person, I like Stolz more, because it is precisely such people who lead a more vibrant, interesting and eventful life.”

Man and society.. What is their relationship? How does society influence a person? Is it possible to resist society? Of course, the truth is known. that it is impossible to live in society and be free from it. People united by social ties must observe certain rules of behavior, following historically established canons. And if this is violated, then conflicts, unrest, and chaos arise. Society, in in a certain sense, subjugates a person, keeps him within limits. Society shapes the worldview and gives some important guidelines. And if someone challenges society, he becomes an outcast, an outcast. But society can be different: conservative, progressive, democratic, and bourgeois. Undoubtedly, living in society, one must comply with its laws, but at the same time preserving one’s own “I”, one’s individuality.
In I. Goncharov's novel "Oblomov" we see how the hero of the work, Ilya Ilyich Oblomov, becomes a victim of Oblomov's upbringing. The society in which he grew up, formed, crippled his ideas about life. Parents protected little Ilyusha from all everyday worries and adversities and did not allow him to be independent. Since childhood, Ilya saw how the Oblomovites lived: they were afraid of the world surrounding Oblomovka, they were afraid of any changes and transformations, they believed in monsters with dog heads. And Oblomov also became like this. Having matured, he closed himself off from the world within four walls and lay down on the sofa. But he is not at all attracted to the St. Petersburg world. Goncharov shows that metropolitan society, to which Stolz so persistently calls Oblomov, is deprived moral ideals. Oblomov, with his subtle soul, feels this well. It turns out that the society that raised Oblomov, despite all the conservatism and ignorance, is no worse than the one in which careerism, hypocrisy, idleness, and envy flourish. And the hero finds himself seemingly on the sidelines of life. Oblomovka remained in dreams, but secular society alien to Oblomov. Oblomov finds his semblance of happiness in the house of Agafya Pshenitsyna, who, having fallen in love with Ilya Ilyich, protects him from the storms of life. The author of the novel makes you think about what role society played in the life of the main character, how it happened that an intelligent, kind, noble person became absolutely unnecessary, unclaimed in life. If we consider this problem from a historical point of view, we can come to the conclusion that the noble class is disappearing from the stage of history, and its place is being taken by enterprising figures like Stolz, the future bourgeois. In this renewal is the eternal breath of life and its eternal tragedy.
A person can adapt to the society in which he lives, but he must, under any circumstances, take care of his human dignity, his honor, his principles.

Plan.

Gallery extra people

Attributes of “superfluous people” The origins of “Oblomovism”

Real-fairy-tale life

Possible happiness and Olga Ilyinskaya

Conclusion. Who is to blame for “Oblomovism”?

Goncharov’s novel “Oblomov” continues the gallery of works that describe heroes who are superfluous to the whole world and to themselves, but not superfluous to the passions boiling in their souls. Oblomov, main character The novel, following Onegin and Pechorin, goes through the same thorny path of life's disappointments, tries to change something in the world, tries to love, make friends, maintain relationships with acquaintances, but all this does not work out well for him. Just like life didn’t work out for Lermontov’s and Pushkin’s heroes. And the main heroines of all these three works, “Eugene Onegin”, “Hero of Our Time” and “Oblomov”, are also similar - pure and bright creatures who were never able to stay with their lovers. Perhaps a certain type of man attracts a certain type of woman? But why then do such worthless men attract such beautiful women? And, in general, what are the reasons for their worthlessness, were they really born this way, or is it a noble upbringing, or is time to blame? Using Oblomov’s example, we will try to understand the essence of the “extra people” problem and try to answer the questions posed.

With the development of the history of “extra people” in literature, a kind of paraphernalia, or things, objects, which must be present for each such “extra” character, was developed. Oblomov has all these accessories: a dressing gown, a dusty sofa and an old servant, without whose help it seemed he would die. Maybe that’s why Oblomov doesn’t go abroad, because there are only “girls” as servants who don’t know how to properly take off a master’s boots. But where did all this come from? It seems that the reason must first of all be sought in the childhood of Ilya Ilyich, in the pampered life that the landowners of that time led and in the inertia that was instilled from childhood: “the mother, after petting him, let him walk in the garden, around the yard, in the meadow , with strict confirmation to the nanny not to leave the child alone, not to allow him near horses, dogs, goats, not to go far from the house, and most importantly, not to let him into the ravine, as the most terrible place in the area, which had a bad reputation.” And, having become an adult, Oblomov also does not allow himself to be near horses, or to people, or to the whole world. Why it is in childhood that it is necessary to look for the roots of such a phenomenon as “Oblomovism” is clearly visible when comparing Oblomov with his childhood friend, Andrei Stolts. They are the same age and the same social status, but like two different planets colliding in space. Of course, all this can only be explained by Stolz’s German origin, however, what then to do with Olga Ilyinskaya, a Russian young lady who, at twenty years old, was much more purposeful than Oblomov. And it’s not even about age (Oblomov was about 30 years old at the time of the events), but again about upbringing. Olga grew up in her aunt’s house, not restrained by the strict orders of her elders or constant affection, and learned everything herself. That's why she has such an inquisitive mind and desire to live and act. After all, in childhood there was no one who would take care of her, hence the sense of responsibility and the inner core that does not allow her to deviate from her principles and way of life. Oblomov was raised by the women of his family, and this is not his fault, but somewhere the fault of his mother, her so-called selfishness towards her child, a life filled with illusions, goblins and brownies, and maybe that was all society in these pre-Moscow times. “Although the adult Ilya Ilyich later learns that there are no honey and milk rivers, no good sorceresses, although he jokes with a smile at his nanny’s stories, this smile is not sincere, it is accompanied by a secret sigh: his fairy tale is mixed with life, and he sometimes unconsciously sad, why is a fairy tale not life, and why is life not a fairy tale?

Oblomov remained living in fairy tales told by his nanny, and was never able to plunge into real life, because real life, for the most part it is black and vulgar, and people living in fairy tales have no place in it, because in real life everything happens not by the wave of a magic wand, but only thanks to human will. Stolz says the same thing to Oblomov, but he is so blind and deaf, so captured by the petty passions raging in his soul, that sometimes he does not even understand his best friend: “Well, brother Andrey, the same for you! There was one smart man, and he went crazy. Who goes to America and Egypt! The English: that’s how God made them; and they have nowhere to live at home. Who will go with us? Is it some desperate person who doesn’t care about life?” But Oblomov himself doesn’t care about life. And he’s too lazy to live. And it seems that only love, big and bright feeling, can revive him. But we know that this did not happen, although Oblomov tried very hard.

At the beginning of the emergence of the relationship between Oblomov and Olga Ilyinskaya, the hope that “happiness is possible” also arises in us, and, indeed, Ilya Ilyich is simply transformed. We see him in the lap of nature, in the country, far from the dusty bustle of the capital, and from the dusty sofa. He is almost like a child, and this village reminds us so much of Oblomovka, when Ilya Ilyich’s mind was still childish and inquisitive, and when the infection of Russian spleen had not yet had time to take root in his body and soul. Probably, in Olga he found his early deceased mother and just as unquestioningly began to obey her, and was also happy that she took patronage over him, because he never learned to manage his life himself. But love for Olga is another fairy tale, a truth invented this time by himself, although he wholeheartedly believes in it. The “superfluous person” is not able to grow this feeling, because it is also superfluous for him, just as he is superfluous for the whole world. However, Oblomov does not lie when he confesses his love to Olga, for Olga is indeed a “fairy-tale” character, because only a fairy from a fairy tale can fall in love with a person like him. How many wrong things Oblomov does - this is the letter he invented at night, this is the constant fear that people will gossip about them, this is the endlessly drawn-out matter with arranging the wedding. Circumstances are always higher than Oblomov, and a person who is unable to control them will certainly slide into the abyss of misunderstanding, despondency and blues. But Olga patiently waits for him, one can only envy her patience, and, finally, Oblomov himself decides to break off the relationship. The reason is very stupid and not worthwhile, but that’s Oblomov. And this is probably the only action in his life that he could decide to do, but the action is stupid and absurd: “Who cursed you, Ilya? What have you done? You are kind, smart, gentle, noble... and... you are dying! What ruined you? There is no name for this evil... “There is,” he said barely audibly. She looked at him questioningly, her eyes full of tears. - Oblomovism!” This is how one phenomenon ruined a person’s entire life! However, we should not forget that it was he, this man, who gave birth to this phenomenon. It did not grow out of nowhere, it was not brought in like a disease, it was carefully nurtured, nurtured and cherished in the soul of our hero, and took such strong roots that it is no longer possible to pull it out. And when, instead of a person, we see only this phenomenon, wrapped in an outer shell, then such a person really becomes “superfluous” or ceases to exist altogether. This is how Oblomov dies quietly in the house of the widow Pshenitsyna, the same phenomenon instead of a person.

I would like to think that society is still to blame for such a weak-willed existence of Oblomov, because he lives in a quiet and calm time, free from shocks, uprisings and wars. Maybe his soul is simply at peace, because he doesn’t have to fight, worry about the fate of the people, his safety, the safety of his family. At such a time, many people are simply born, live and die, just like in Oblomovka, because time does not require heroic deeds from them. But we can say with confidence that even if danger arose, Oblomov would not, under any circumstances, go to the barricades. This is his tragedy. And what then to do with Stolz, he is also a contemporary of Oblomov and lives with him in the same country and in the same city, however, his whole life is like a small feat. No, Oblomov himself is to blame, and this makes it even worse, because in essence he is a good person.

But such is the fate of all “extra” people. Unfortunately, it is not enough to just be a good person, you also need to fight and prove it, which Oblomov, unfortunately, was unable to do. But he became an example for people then and today, an example of what you can become if you are not able not only to control the events of life, but also yourself. They are “superfluous”, these people, they have no place in life, because it is cruel and merciless, first of all, to the weak and infirm, and because one must always fight for a place in this life!