Doi: 10. 17516/1997-1370-0640 Socio-Cultural Determinacy of Human Loneliness

Community as the basis for existence
of the Meeting
Representatives of cultural anthropolo-
gy (in particular, F. Tönnies, K. Levi-Strauss) 
consider community as a basic and fundamen-

---

– 1266 –
Igor A. Belyaev and Maksim N. Lyashchenko. Socio-Cultural Determinacy of Human Loneliness
tal form of sociality, which contributes to the 
growth of social forms of sociality out of its 
needs (society, social systems, social institu-
tions) (Levi-Strauss, 1985; Tönnies, 2002). One 
cannot but agree that community (being with 
the Significant Other), being a form of sociali-
ty, in the spiritual-existential understanding is 
primary in relation to society as being with the 
Other. Therefore, it is more desirable for the 
Self to be with the Significant Other (one’s own 
Other) than with the Other. However, commu-
nity without society is meaningless and cannot 
exist, like the Significant Other without the 
Other. Moreover, the Other potentially con-
ceals one’s own Other. A necessary condition 
for the implementation of all this is the Meet-
ing.
It is noteworthy that these two forms of 
sociality are interconnected and interdeter-
mined. Mismatch and deharmonisation of 
relations between them is a condition for the 
emergence of loneliness and various forms of 
deviation and addiction. Failures, deforma-
tions, damage and restructuring that occur in 
society will certainly (and usually negative-
ly) affect the integrity and self-identity of the 
community. Therefore, the harmonious coher-
ence of community and society is a condition 
that almost completely excludes the likelihood 
of loneliness and various deviant types of be-
haviour. However, according to the synergic 
paradigm, objects existing in the world, in 
the overwhelming majority of cases, should 
be recognised as non-equilibrium systems. 
Thus, according to A.P. Nazaretian, society 
is a non-equilibrium system, the specificity of 
which is that structural deformations, disor-
ganisation and destabilisation are inevitable 
in it; its stability is provided by mediating 
mechanisms (culture) (Nazaretian, 2012: 62).
Man is, first of all, “directly a natural be-
ing, ... suffering, dependent and limited; that is 
to say, the objects of his impulses exist outside 
him, as objects independent of him; yet these 
objects are objects of his need – essential ob-
jects, indispensable to the manifestation and 
confirmation of his essential powers” (Marx, 
1956: 631). Having an object outside himself 
(and it cannot be otherwise, at least according 
to K. Marx), a person becomes an object for 
another being, as he seeks to fulfill his essence 
outside, which conditions the formation of con-
nections between him and other people (Marx 
, 1956: 632). K. Marx states, “non-objective 
being is an impossible, absurd being” (Marx, 
1956: 632), which basically cannot have a place 
in existence. Thus, in the process of joint ac-
tivity, individuals enter into communication, 
forming a certain type of connection with each 
other, which becomes “a structure of society” 
i.e. a system of social relations that determines 
the activity of an individual, including his com-
munication with other individuals, his inherent 
states and behavioural strategy (Kagan, 1988).
Mainly, the purpose of society, its struc-
tural organisation and institutions is to achieve 
and maintain community between individuals 
and ensure its high level – the Meeting, where 
a person’s being acquires spiritual and personal 
integrity, wholeness and self-identity.