INTERVIEW WITH NIFONT DOLGOPOLOV

Nifont Dolgopolov, an extraordinary, warm, and insightful psychotherapist, trainer, supervisor, teacher, and author of numerous articles and books. From 1996 to 2018, he led the Moscow Institute of Gestalt and Psychodrama, which he founded. Nifont passed away in January 2018.

I recorded this conversation with Nifont at the end of 2015. Originally, we intended to create a series of 4 interviews. However, we only managed to record one. The first. We revisited the idea of recording the remaining interviews several times, but unfortunately, we never realized it.

Despite the fact that when I conducted this interview, Nifont was already seriously ill, he spoke about social responsibility, which, as he himself said, he had been living for lately.

I am very grateful to Nifont for his efforts and honesty in addressing such an important topic, which unfortunately is often avoided even by psychotherapists. But not by Nifont.

Olga Movchan

О: I know your institute has an anniversary conference coming up soon. What will you be doing at the conference? What will you be presenting?

Н: I will be doing something about the social "I"... I've been living with this topic lately... When clients come to me, I am quite reactive and attentive. As for society... I notice that a lot is happening in the world, but I am not reactive... And this brings about such social sadness. In gestalt, we talk about field theory, about different fields... It turns out that, personally for me, many fields are simply atrophied. In human interaction, I know what adequate response is and what its goal is—what I want from the contact. When I turn my attention to the social context, it turns out that I don't really know the right moves. I see people giving speeches, attending demonstrations, or something else. But it seems to me that most, like the opposition, for example, act in completely ridiculous ways.

O: Meaningless?

N: ...Their meaningfulness raises strong doubts for me.

O: Do you think that a person's social life is instinctive?

N: No, I don't think so. Moreover, people pretend that they are somehow more consciously doing all this... Although animals do the same: if dogs fight and one lies on its back, they stop attacking—there are also agreements among them, instinctive, probably... Or during a fire, no one devours each other; they somehow unite, even at a watering hole. Well, the longer I live, the more I am convinced that there are a huge number of factors that are not controlled by humans. Accordingly, they react on the level of various kinds of instincts—biological or social. In gestalt, this is called introjects—things that are unconsciously adopted from society, like in the joke: "…the music inspired." Therefore, I think we greatly exaggerate the role of consciousness—well, Freud wrote about this too, disappointing humanity...

O: Not to mention Jung with his collective unconscious.

N: Yes, therefore, of course, humanity's role in creating autonomous, personal ways is highly doubtful. I mean in the social context. Because the power of the social field suppresses human, personal decisions. If a person participates in a war, they don't have many choices, really: either they shoot or they don't shoot. Either they kill or they get killed. Sometimes the situation is condensed to such a simple alternative.

O: Well, there are other alternatives. Like in stories about World War II, when a soldier chose not to shoot civilians. He took a stand and didn't shoot. Isn't that a social act?

N: You know, I feel very confident in a dyadic space or a small group. Because I have a certain scheme of consciousness and a scheme of actions. But by the scheme of consciousness, I mean that I rely on the facts that I see and hear. And even now, when you bring up a fact, it's like the story of Panfilov's Twenty-Eight Guardsmen: sometimes they exist, sometimes they don't, sometimes the feat exists, sometimes it doesn't. This is an ideological construct that has very little to do with actual facts. It pursues a completely different goal—according to a certain ideology, to create some historical reconstruction. So what happened to that soldier? I believe he existed, but beyond that, I don't know... Maybe he was just executed if his superiors found out that he didn't follow the order...

O: Well, yes, there's a chance...

N: That's why I say there is a choice: either you'll be shot, or you'll shoot. This doesn't free us from my example. Well, maybe there's a chance that no one found out or they found out thirty years later, but that's just a chance, not much.

O: What does a social position mean to you in this context when the choice is so small?

N: A small choice doesn't mean to me that you should give up. In this sense, I respect people who go out to demonstrations and many other acts. Even if it's reactive, even if it's by crowd instinct, even if it's meaningless, because… here I delve into personal topics… Maybe I'm doing some meaningless actions in fighting my illness... The very fact that I'm doing it energizes me, and at least it's an attempt.

O: That makes everything less meaningless…

N: Yes. The meaning is different here. Still, a person does something, tries, imagines that they are doing it themselves. Back in the day, when I worked at the Moscow State Pedagogical Institute, now a pedagogical university, I made agreements with various organizations. Only later did I realize that I was making agreements with regions where my grandfather had been exiled during the Tsarist era. This is an astonishing fact to me. At that time, I didn't even know the places of his exile, which suggests thoughts about unconscious memory, the collective unconscious... But I thought I was making these choices consciously, based on rational considerations. And then it all came together in a very clear picture, with almost 90% accuracy.

O: That's incredibly interesting. Tell me about your grandfather and grandmother, and then we can maybe return to the discussion about social positions.

N: Well, I never met them because there's a significant generation gap. My father had me when he was 61, and my grandfather was born around 1856. That's two centuries ago. Grandfather died in the 1920s. I was named after him. He was a doctor. He was also an organizer. He established a hospital in Nizhny Novgorod. He was socially active, too… He wasn't a Bolshevik, but he helped workers and participated in demonstrations. That's actually why he was exiled. Since I was named after him, I even feel a bit of envy. And regret that I can't talk to him, to understand the meanings he invested in things… The same goes for my grandmother… Why did she, from a well-off, prosperous family, decide to rush to Europe at the age of 15 or 16? Grandmother lived in Mogilev. She received a home education in a prosperous Jewish family. And she ran away to Europe. One of her activities was publishing the newspaper "Pravda" in ancient Hebrew. This was also a significant social act. Because a newspaper is a message to society, not just writing for oneself.

O: And what, she returned at 16 and brought "Pravda"?

N: Well, maybe not exactly "Pravda," because I don't know who would read it in ancient Hebrew here… I think she brought some social-democratic literature that was banned. She behaved quite actively, communicated with Kropotkin and other figures. And when she went back to Russia, she was detained at the border with some banned literature and was imprisoned in Livonia Castle in St. Petersburg until she came of age. It was probably called preliminary detention back then. And then, upon reaching adulthood, she was sent into exile, where she met my grandfather. Despite traveling all over Siberia, she gave birth to twelve children there.

O: What was her name?

N: Well, her original name was Hasya Shur. Later she became Vera Fominichna Dolgopolova.

O: How did your grandfather end up in exile?

N: Grandfather studied at Kharkiv University, in the medical department. In the 1870s, he participated in student unrest. Pavel Nilin has a novel dedicated to Burdenko, and there is a chapter titled "The Sad Story of Nifont Dolgopolov." I was teased about it in school. It describes him as just standing nearby — the Soviet version — and defending the students. A lyrical, sad image. I don't think it's accurate because there were two biographies. I found this online. One is a polished Soviet version, portraying him as a poor little grandpa wrongfully repressed by the Tsarist government for nothing… The other is more realistic, in my opinion: that he actively participated in some circles, actively organized demonstrations or something. That’s why he was repressed. He spent quite a lot of time there. There is a book by Kennan, an American journalist. He wrote two volumes of "The History of Political Prisoners in Siberia," which also has information. Grandfather was forbidden from practicing medicine. But conditionally. For example, in the town where he was assigned, the governor's wife gets sick and needs urgent help. And he was more qualified than the local doctors. He helped, they said: "Thank you." But later, through another channel, he was exiled even further because he violated the ban. He also actively wrote something, was a correspondent for a newspaper. Perhaps his texts also displeased those observing political prisoners. Maybe that was also a reason he was continually exiled to different places. In any case, he was in Kurgan, Tobolsk, and Kazakhstan. His exile geography was quite extensive.

O: Do you think these stories about your grandfather and grandmother influenced you?

N: They didn't just influence me — they continue to have a powerful impact.

O: How do they influence you?

N: When I think about how they overcame all those hardships… Well, it's not just exile, it's not luxurious like sometimes described about the Decembrist wives who moved to settlements. It’s a difficult, challenging life… And how they managed, how they gave birth to children, how they raised them there? I can't even imagine. I have one child, and I'm in a metropolis (Nifont’s youngest son Lev Dolgopolov was born in 2016. — Ed.). But there, in constant travel or unsanitary conditions — who knows how they managed! My father was one of the youngest in the family. That’s why he was born in Astrakhan. Grandfather was allowed to be closer. Some of the children died… but nine survived. It was a tough life. In any case, when my father made me walk barefoot, he would tell me that in May, grandfather would take away all the shoes and return them only in early October… Because providing shoes for all nine children during the summer was probably impossible, despite his practice at the hospital…

O: Did your father teach you to be resilient against all kinds of hardships?..

N: Well… yes, in that sense, references to my grandfather accompanied my childhood and, I would say, gave me strength. Although I didn’t meet him, his model was passed on to me through my father. His endurance, resilience, rebelliousness, and risk-taking (because being somewhat of a dissident means being independent of certain standards) strongly influenced me… on my autonomy in thinking, actions, and so on.

I didn’t meet my grandfather, but I did meet my father…

O: What did your father do?

N: He was a very well-known lawyer… He worked in Soviet advocacy for fifty years, how he survived — it’s unclear. But, as a lawyer, he also maintained a therapeutic position. His own opinion and respect for the client, otherwise how can you defend a person? Especially sometimes he was a state-appointed defender. And he defended German generals at the field trials held after the war. That was also a great challenge — defending, if you understand on one hand: yes, he indeed killed so many, but on the other hand, you have to find something to defend…

He wasn’t a formalist — he truly believed in his profession.

O: Is it important for you as a therapist to defend the client?

N: It's important to defend their right to an inner world. And I say this not only from a professional standpoint, but it also has family roots.

O: Time has flown by so quickly! I wanted to ask you about your mother. I remember you spoke about her with great tenderness.

N: In the context of the social "I," it's interesting… My mother seemed quite closed off on this topic. Unlike my father, who was always immersed in some kind of social "I" and found ways to survive. 90% of lawyers were simply executed. By definition, since they were opposing the state prosecution system. There were stories like action movies. For instance, he was supposed to be arrested in Petersburg, and he jumped off the train somewhere along the way. Or quickly moved out of an apartment… He was in the social "I" theme, figuring out what to do, how to survive, how to save the family. My mother, on the other hand, was a quieter person. Her father was taken in '37, she was already over eighteen. Strictly speaking, she was also supposed to be sent to the camp, since she was an adult. She and her mother burned the passport, where her age was written. They made some other passport, I don't know the details. In any case, she became a person born in 1920, although she was actually born in 1917. She only revealed this secret when she was over eighty. That she was actually a bit older.

O: These stories should heighten the importance of the social position (at least, the similar stories in my family heighten it).

N: Yes, but I can't say that it was customary in our family to discuss this a lot. There was a veil of fear. And my other grandfather was executed in '37. Although he was a surveyor, a cartographer, he posed no social threat. It turned out that a neighbor coveted the small shed that was used as a summer house. The denunciation was shown during the rehabilitation, and it was the only document by which he was executed.

O: Is this about fear or… rage for you?

N: It's about horror and rage, yes. About all this suppressed emotion. And about the fact that nothing can be done about it. You see, it doesn't make sense in the mind that someone can be killed over a shed and it's legalized through the social machine.

O: Can you clarify your social stance a bit more? Is it important for you to communicate it if you have one?

N: Well, I said that the topic is not finished for me… It’s more in progress. But I have defined some things for myself. They are more like reference points. Let me share them with you, okay?

O: Sure, go ahead…

N: I don’t interact much online. For the past five years, I’ve been ill, and I simply don’t have the time or energy. On the other hand, I observe quite monotonous patterns, even among people I respect. For example, links to articles labeled as “truthfully and unbiasedly reflecting the situation.” These two words — “truthfully” and “unbiasedly” — are key for me. The sad realization for me is that not only can I not get to the facts. Strictly speaking, no one in society can. The idea that “it was actually like this!” fundamentally contradicts, in my opinion, the concept of cognition. Because it’s one thing to narrow down a context we can reduce to the first approximation. It’s still vast, but we can narrow it down. For example, in dyadic communication — “actually, I said this.” But in a large social event, it’s impossible. It’s like the banal parable about the blind men and the elephant. One says, “a column.” Another says, “a rope.” A third says something else. If you multiply this a million times, that’s the perception — even if someone can see, they only see from one side. It’s just their biased psychological view. They see through their own lenses, through their own beliefs… So the formula “actually” or “truthful situation” is completely meaningless to me. And here arises the first difficulty. If my own facts are unclear, how do I construct a social response? What am I reacting to: just my own beliefs, my own vision? Or am I reacting to my reference group — it doesn’t matter what it’s called, intelligentsia or Christians, whatever. And that’s my choice. But then, don’t drag in “actually.” Just say to yourself, “I went to the demonstration because my friends went.” So one of my reference points is that it’s fundamentally impossible to construct an objective, truthful picture, unfortunately.

O: But you can rely on values or your reference group.

N: Yes. My second point is that, strictly speaking, unlike small contexts, in a social context, when people say “actually,” they don’t want to construct the truth. They want something else. To reinforce their beliefs, for example. To serve their inner “I.” We need to be honest about this. And this is the next step towards progress, towards a social response. If Korczak’s belief was that if children go to the gas chamber, then he goes to the gas chamber, that’s clear. Just because any other behavior would contradict his integrity. And destruction in the gas chamber is much easier than his own destruction. Then everything is clear. So I acknowledge for myself that I serve my beliefs and inner “I”… Then I take responsibility for it. If something was done wrong… Because there’s so much muddiness… and it intertwines imperceptibly with propaganda. It doesn’t matter whose side: Americans, Putin, Ukrainians. And again, a person loses their “I.” Their social “I” ceases to exist. And what’s most sad for me: people who are supposed to do some strong intellectual work on this differentiation, and even play some social role, like the intelligentsia, often don’t do this work.

O: Differentiating what? Personal values? Personal ideas?

N: Personal values. They are also in this whirlpool. When quite intelligent and personally respected people write "truthfully and impartially," it just blows my weak mind... Weak in the social context, actually not very weak.

O: What do you think is the purpose of this group, which you consider socially responsible, in distinguishing values? To understand why you act this way, to understand why you express yourself this way?

N: In my opinion, to conduct some strong reflection. What's going on? How do I relate to this? How is perception arranged? How do I react? The same work that needs to be done in a client mode. It needs to be done on oneself and also communicated to others. But not to send texts with the idea "in fact" or "truthfully." But to acknowledge one's helplessness, powerlessness, weakness — what we teach individual clients. In other words, to integrate...

O: As you describe it, a psychotherapist has a huge social responsibility, because he must not only reflect on himself, but also help the client or group he works with...

N: Or society.

О: How?

Н:If I had an answer in that sense, I would just be socially genius! But rather, it's some exploration. If I don't acknowledge my fundamental weakness in constructing a factual picture, if I don't acknowledge that my socio-instinctive actions start with what psychologists call projection, then instead of recognizing my own issues, I start reasoning about Americans, Ukrainians, or Putin.

О: Well, we react to some consequences, to actions.

Yes, it's possible. But in general, you can't build a clear picture. If we talk about facts. It's like if someone sent me: "Sign the petition." Some textbook in sociology should be banned. Well, looking through the lens of factology—why ban a textbook if the petition only refers to two paragraphs? Just remove those two paragraphs.

О: Makes sense.

Doesn't it? But there's such pathos there. And there are signs of manipulation of information in this petition, like subtle substitutions of facts. In the textbook, it says: "People with serious psychological disorders." In the petition, it says: "People with mental deviations." That's not the same thing. Furthermore, there's linking to some emotional-social moments. For example, comparing these statements about disabled people to gas chambers. Naturally, objections then get associated with supporting fascism. And then there's no room left for them. You need to delve into it carefully, not just sign or refuse to sign the petition. If you're not lazy about taking a civic stance, look at the textbook, form your own opinion. After that, if this petition suits you, sign it. If it doesn't suit you but you're against this textbook, write your own letter. Go there, to the ministry. Everything requires payment—time, energy. But just signing: "I'm against..." is not nice. Irresponsible. Antisocial. In this, responsibility, if I really take a social civic stance... I'm a little embarrassed by these lofty words because I lived in Soviet times, and they carry this shade of banality and falsehood. But if we cleanse the meaning, yes, then personally I need to take this textbook alive and look at it. At least, I don't know any other way.

О: What can you do as a therapist? Or just as a person? Besides thinking, being attentive, responsible...

One more thing I would say. Another petition: they're closing a hospital. What horror! Again, some children will now be treated or injected under the fence instead of that. Unfortunately, this is no longer about the textbook for me personally. Because this context is not my forte as an ordinary citizen. Because if I really start to take an interest in this topic, to communicate with experts in this field, not just wave a petition, I find out that it's actually reasonable that we have an excessive number of hospital beds. But the important thing is different: I can no longer form my opinion on this picture. Any of my civic actions—whether for or against—it's antisocial for me. It's important to distinguish areas where I am not competent. If you're not competent, don't express a position. A social stance would honestly write: "Abstain. Not competent." For me, a social position is autonomous, that is, personal.

О: Do you feel that lately it has been more socially saturated? If so, are there any changes in client demands related to this?

Н: Personally, when I feel physically stronger (I mean in connection with illness), I'm ready to delve into this topic. So, this year I took the risk of conducting my intensive, methodological training. It was a daring venture for me because typically, my intensives gather around forty people in one group. It's not a small group, so to speak. And we conduct it together with another therapist. It's six days of intense immersion. I was concerned about how people would emotionally handle being in such a large group. Or how I would. And you know, to my surprise, many people responded gratefully because they truly realized that this topic had been suppressed or strained, unexplored. Just the awareness that this topic exists and is so explosively impactful, rather than just being stashed away... no, it festers, it erupts when ignored. I was surprised by the number of people who recognized the influence of the social context.

О: Do you believe that the role of a therapist is to be sensitive to the topics present in society and help the group to actualize them?

Н: I do. Moreover, I sometimes consider it impossible to ignore them.

For example, I am a trainer in Los Angeles. They have been conducting intensives in Europe for forty years. People from many countries gather there. They are all under some pressure of propaganda... I was appointed as a trainer for the most senior group, the so-called "master class". There are three Americans, two Australians, a Lithuanian, a Czech, or even two, and so on in the group. No one in the group talks about me being a Russian trainer... But for myself, I find it inadequate to ignore this topic.

О: So, what topics do participants bring up in the group?

Н: Well, they immediately talk about having ambivalent feelings towards the trainer. "On one hand, I see that you're Nifont, and on the other hand, I have this image that you're an occupier." A bit of a trainer, a bit of Nifont, a bit of an occupier.

О: What do you see as your role as a trainer? You say, "It's important for me to say that I'm from Russia, and I'm not an occupier or not just an occupier." Is that it? What is your message?

Н: For me, it's about maintaining respect for another perspective. It's important for me to convey that I respect others, even if I consider them not very thoughtful or productive in the context we're discussing. It's like respecting a client—their inner world. Here, my profession as a psychotherapist really saves, helps, supports me. Because it's such a tough skill to respect another world, not just who's right. Each of us has our own perceptions, and we exchange them. And that, essentially, is dialogue.

О: Besides Ukraine, what social topics do clients bring up?

Н: Clients respond to current events. Right now, it's Syria. When Soviet planes "Hooray! Bombed Syrian settlements," even in a weakened social consciousness, questions arose. We accuse Americans of expansionism, but we're doing the same...

О: Do you feel that demands have become more socially oriented recently?

Н: I feel that the tension in clients' social "self" has increased exponentially.

О: When? In the last five years? Ten, two?

Н: I think it happens in waves... Well, for example, in the 90s or during Perestroika, there was also tremendous tension in the social "self," tremendous. People lived in one paradigm, and now they're outside it. They believed in one thing, and now it turns out it's not good to believe in it... It's the same now. There are talks: "Has the third world war actually begun?" So far, in this informational rattling. Well, of course, it affects. The very words "third world war"...

О: Does this push out any other topics?

Н: You see, usually these topics aren't brought up directly. We deal with the consequences: anxiety, panic attacks.

О: Have they increased?

Н: I think so. According to my colleagues, yes, I see an increase in anxiety. I work with the future, as you know. And there has never been as many recorded in futurology as last year. For me, this means that anxiety about the future has sharply increased...

О: It's interesting how you talk about grandma and grandpa, as if it's some adventurous part of you and an active part. Is there another part that's about respecting positions? Like it's from somewhere else?

Н: Well, I would say it's from professional training. I can even share a case that had a profound impact on me. In the chaotic 90s, Western therapists flooded in here, and two American women came... They were leading a seminar together. One was a smart lady. And the other—(taps the table)—well, I don't want to offend her, just, well...

О: Not very.

Н: Not very smart times ten or times a hundred. And so, gathering the audacity of the 90s when she was alone, I asked her, "Doesn't your tandem stress you out? Because sometimes you say something, and she counters with her foolishness..." Well, she says, "You know, she's my partner, so everything is shared—intelligence and foolishness." Such organic respect for a partner, that's all. I think the theme of social "self" is simply impossible without it, it's better not to touch it... without deep skills of personal and professional respect for others.

О: Do you bring this into your work?

Н: Yes, I don't just bring it—I stand on it.