In search of a thesaurus of everyday theatricality as a philosophical and anthropological phenomenon: «scenario», «performance», «persona»

Rakhimova Maiya Vil'evna PhD in Philosophy Associate professor, Department of Social Sciences, Humanities and Psychological-Pedagogical Disciplines; South Ural State Institute of Art named after P. I. Tchaikovsky 454091, Russia, Chelyabinskaya Oblast' oblast', g. Chelyabinsk, ul. Plekhanova, 41 Mayesta@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Kuznetsova Tat'yana Viktorovna Doctor of Philosophy Professor; Department of Aesthetics; Lomonosov Moscow State University Moscow, Lomonosovsky Prospekt, 27, building 4. estet@philos.msu.ru

Introduction

It is difficult to imagine a study of "everyday theatricality" without analyzing the experience of behavioral sciences about a person, about the nature of his artistic behavior in society. Since behavioral sciences, according to their professional (sociological, psychological, medical) specifics, are in close contact with a person in his practical activity, they possess not only a theoretical, but also an impressive empirical resource on the problem, a resource whose analysis is able to set a special depth to the study of the "theatrical" nature of man, manifesting itself in "everyday theatricality."

At the moment, "everyday theatricality" is understood by the author as a complex, open, self-organizing phenomenon of human adaptation to external and internal challenges, manifesting the "theatrical" nature of man and realizing its existential potential in society, as a phenomenon with a pronounced social, communicative, sociocultural orientation, realizing itself in the daily culture of communication ^{[17, pp. 172,173]}.

The research methodology meets the purpose of the article, which focuses on the analysis of the terminological structure of "everyday theatricality" as a philosophical phenomenon. The subject of the scientific work reflects the search for a suitable terminology that reveals the meaningful potential of "everyday theatricality." Descriptive, analytical, categorical, comparative, as well as methods of analogy and generalization should be noted among the methods.

The methodological basis is the scientific materials of scientists who worked in the paradigm of behavioral sciences about man – psychology, sociology, psychiatry (E. Bern, I. Hoffman, K. Jung). The choice of the authors is conditioned by the need to substantiate the scientific potential of the terms "scenario", "representation", "person", developed in the works of scientists.

The criterion for the choice of terms is their conceptual proximity to the problem of the "theatrical" nature of man studied by the author, their substantial psychological depth, which makes it possible to more accurately reveal "everyday theatricality" as a tool of the human psyche and behavior.

It is important to note that the terms "scenario", "representation", "persona" were not previously considered as structural elements of "everyday theatricality", although they reflected theatrical (dramatic) ways of identifying and social communication of a person in society.

Each of the terms is, to a certain extent, self-sufficient in its professional niche. At the same time, the study of "everyday theatricality", of which this work is a part, involves the search for morphological contours of the phenomenon, including a thesaurus, through which "everyday theatricality" realizes its meaningful and functional potential. This determines the relevance of this work.

The discussion includes materials from sociologists E. Burns and Guy Debord, and philosophers J. Rousseau, I. Kant, F. La Rochefoucauld, A. Schopenhauer, M. Heidegger, etc., the provisions of a number of encyclopedias, dictionaries, including the dictionary of the Pavi theater, as the most appropriate scientific job search.

Referring to dictionaries and encyclopedias is important in view of their terminological stability, consistency and universalism, starting from which it is possible to build the necessary analogies and determine the desired terminological potential.

The logic of the article structure is dictated by the need to analyze each term based on a specific scientific paper in which the term was presented for the first time. I would like to emphasize the need for a brief presentation of the key ideas of each of the authors, followed by an analysis of the terms and a search for their intended correspondences with the content of "everyday theatricality" as a phenomenon.

Can behavioral sciences contribute to the study of the theatrical nature of man, and if so, what contribution? Do the terms "scenario", "performance", and "persona" have the scientific potential to explore "everyday theatricality"? In search of an answer to these questions, let us turn to the scientific legacy of E. Bern, I. Hoffmann and K. Jung, who investigated the problem of dramatic adaptation of a person to himself and to the social environment using the author's terminology, among other things.

Everyday theatricality and the "script" (E. Bern)

In the work "Games played by people. People who play games" by E. Bern focuses on the problems of transactional analysis and special scenario programs-installations that accompany a person since childhood. Sincerity in communication, according to the author, is not given to a person easily.

The difficulties associated with genuine intimacy in communication, in relationships, both in society and in the family, are largely dictated by the power of life scenarios, on the one hand, and the complexity of critical self-perception, on the other.

Eric Berne writes that in communication, people use a certain set of behavioral patterns corresponding to a certain state of consciousness. Differences in behavioral patterns allowed the author to conclude that there are different states of Self. In ordinary speech, these states are called "Parent", "Adult", "Child" ^{[3, p. 19]}. In communication and exchanges, people manifest one or the other of the stated states, and they can also move from state to state, depending on external factors, the proposed circumstances of the situation, internal motivation, and so on.

Eric Bern's extensive psychotherapeutic practice leads him to believe that a person (actually) spends his whole life deceiving the world and himself. He lives according to the "scenario", which is a permanent life plan created in childhood under the influence of parents ^{[3, pp. 187,188]}.

According to E. Bern, a person constantly emits scenario signals, without realizing it himself. Others react to signals, not to the person or their self–image - the scenario operates without their participation. If a person studies their facial expression in a mirror, they will soon understand why people react the way they do; moreover, they can change the state of affairs if they want to. However, most people are so focused on their scenarios that they find any excuses not to look at themselves in the mirror; they prefer the development of their scenario without their intervention up to a predetermined ending ^{[3, pp. 377,378]}.

Not only the plastic face shows the work of the script, but also the mobile Self, which has a psychological nature. The sense of Self can focus on any of the three states of Self at any moment, and also, like an electric charge, can move from one state to another, thus carrying out a kind of Ego journey. The state of Self that is currently active is felt as the real Self ^{[3, p. 379,380]}; as "a relatively stable, more or less conscious, experienced as a unique system of representations of an individual about himself, on the basis of which he builds interaction with other people and treats himself" ^{[10, P. 20]}.

Following the author's reflections, it can be noted that the psychological states of the Ego are behavioral programs sewn into consciousness by the events of the life of an individual and his parents. It is unlikely that the programs are theatrical in nature, which does not exclude their playful beginning. But it is precisely these states of Self that a person is able to operate in an artistic way, achieving a certain gain (coupon) of communication, without actually experiencing sincere feelings, but only demonstrating them.

When E. Bern writes about social games that are included in life "scenarios", he writes about the encouragement and censure from society. As an example, we can cite a game (that is, a specific example of the manifestation of "everyday theatricality" in modern social practice) - "If it weren't for him"! According to E. Berne, it is customary to play it in a sorority, and if you play "by the rules" (criticizing your husbands in conversation), then everything is fine, and you can become "your own" person in a tight-knit circle of friends. If you refuse and insist that your husband is a good, kind person, then you will not last long in the team. This example, for all its psychological artificiality, is not without relevance, although, of course, not every women's community is obliged to play "if it weren't for him." On the other hand, it is difficult to avoid manipulative states of communication in everyday life, especially in groups that are not necessarily female.

Analysis of the scientific potential of the term "scenario"

The scientific potential of the term "scenario" is determined by the serious empirical support provided by Eric Bern's medical practice as a psychotherapist, as well as the functional stability of cliche psychological programs embedded, according to his reflection, in behavior as if by default.

When referring to dictionaries, it can be noted that a script refers to some brief content, instructions for performance, open to improvisation ^{[13, P. 337]}; the plot scheme according to which the play is created, a detailed creative plan for the production of the film ^[20]; the verbal prototype of the film, the anticipation of its images, the outline ^[9]. In other words, this is a kind of "synopsis plan", following which the action of the film or play will reach the desired climax, which does not exclude the richness of nuance and individual details in the course of the "synopsis plan".

Admittedly, Eric Berne does not argue with the traditional interpretation of the term, since his script is also a plan, a life plan formed under the influence of parents in childhood ^{[3, P. 552]}, which a person follows throughout life, although filling it with individual events, but rarely truly violating it.

By the way, the phenomenon of the "life scenario" is an independent unit of analysis, involving entire scientific schools and directions. For example, in Russian psychology, the life scenario is considered as a socio-psychological phenomenon associated with the ability to plan, construct and structure life, the ability of a person to choose his life path, while for representatives of the foreign school of psychology, the traditional position is about the unconscious nature of the formation and implementation of a person's life scenario, where a person cannot It is sufficient to be the master of one's own destiny ^{[14, pp. 124,125]}.

In the first case, some choice is assumed - to follow or not to follow the path of life, in the second case, a person moves along a life trajectory (which is there anyway) most of the time unconsciously (spontaneously or predetermined).

It seems that these differences in the interpretation of the life scenario do not negate the general understanding of the scenario as a plan, a scheme of fate. The general meaning of the term remains stable and universal, and this determines its relevance as an element of the thesaurus of theatricality.

In the context of "everyday theatricality", the "scenario" (E. Bern) clarifies the nature of the persistent repetitive cliched actions and reactions of people in everyday communication, according to the individual proposed circumstances that people find themselves in from time to time: from situations of friendly communication, in the workplace, to spontaneous situations in the store, on public transport, and so on..

In all these situational fragments, before a person orients himself to genuine communication, it seems that the default mechanism of a communicative response is triggered in him, which looks like sincere communication, but most often relies on some stable internal scenarios.

By the way, we note that before a professional actor goes on stage, he carefully observes the daily lives of people around him, and his range of attention is focused not only on unique manifestations of character, but in many ways on the skill ("consent") of a person to "stay within the bounds of what is allowed" (situation, pattern, cultural norms and values). These social patterns are subsequently embodied by the actor on stage, thereby becoming understandable and familiar to us, as we "recognize ourselves in the situations played." The actor is interested in the life scenarios that we embody on the stage of everyday life, our "involvement" in situational patterns. Researcher Elizabeth Burns, in particular, draws attention to this point when analyzing the social context of "theatricality" as a phenomenon connecting the stage and everyday life ^{[4, p. 16,17]}.

As a result of the flawless operation of the "built-in" scenarios, the exchange of remarks, emotions, and reactions helps the everyday situation to manifest itself, happen, resolve, and end. The behavior of the communicators, thanks to the scenarios, is predictable to a certain extent and is read by carriers of similar programs without any special problems.

The script, as an element of "everyday theatricality," promotes predictable human interaction, communication without deep immersion in the other's personality, in the context of the situation. Moreover, this type of communication does not exclude sincerity to the extent that the communicants believe that they are sincere. Another thing is that the problem of sincerity and closeness in communication is quite complex from a philosophical point of view, requiring a certain amount of spiritual energy from a person, which is not always available in rapidly changing communication situations in everyday life.

Everyday theatricality and "performance" (I. Hoffman)

In the book "Representing Oneself to Others in Everyday Life," Irving Hoffman focuses on the idea, the image that a person forms about himself while staying in society, forming connections, building interactions. The representation of oneself to others in everyday life is revealed from the perspective of the theatrical dramatic potential inherent in the representation.

How does I. Hoffman reveal the problem of "representation"? First of all, the author speaks about the secret interest of the interlocutors in information about each other, which they seek to obtain in communication, or communicate through images and demonstrations about themselves. They want to receive information about another person that is useful and truthful, and they would like to convey information about themselves that is appropriate to their circumstances and benefits.

The term "representation" is used to refer to all the activities of an individual that occur during the period of his continuous presence in front of certain observers and which have some influence on the observers.

"Representation" presupposes the "foreground" as a standard set of expressive means that an individual uses intentionally or unconsciously in the course of social communication. The foreground defines the situation for those who are watching the "performance". The standard elements of the foreground are the environment, personal foreground, appearance, manners ^{[5, pp. 34-36]}.

In addition to the foreground, there is also a background area, the "backstage", where repressed facts, hidden motives and interests are located. It is here that the ability of a "representation" to express anything other than its direct meaning can be carefully polished; it is here that impressions and illusions are openly created. Here, stage props and elements of the personal foreground can be stored in the form of a compactly "packed" complete repertoire of actions and actors ^{[5, p. 136]}.

A particular participant acts as a reference point, while other categories of performers are interpreted as "audience", "audience", "observers", and "accomplices". A "party" or "routine" is a preset pattern of action that is revealed during the performance that is played.

When an individual or a "performer" plays the same part in front of the same audience in different circumstances, then it probably makes sense to talk about the emergence of a "social relationship" ^{[5, p. 27]}. An individual "gets used" to a social role, to a life role, which he performs by interacting with others, and the image that is conveyed by his behavior must be taken seriously, because the individual inspires this image ("implicitly asks to be taken seriously") by observers ^{[5, p. 28]}. I. Hoffman draws attention to the fact that The broadcast role is played not selflessly, but for the sake of the result desired by the individual(s). Therefore, the desire to convince the audience of the truthfulness of the image requires tools for managing people and situations, including dramatic ones.

We get to know each other in the roles. Theatrical means of expression provide comfortable communication, give a sense of security and security ^{[5, P. 74]}. Here I would like to note that, being engaged in roles, people hardly have the opportunity to fully get to know each other, since the introductory characteristics of the role already imply following the image inherent in it. Another thing is that social roles help to speak the same "language", which, indeed, creates a sense of security. The images (the people in them) "communicate" following understandable scenarios, and uncertainty gives way to standards of social interaction, acquiring a touch of artistic communication.

I. Hoffman draws attention to the fact that when a person presents himself to others, his "presentation" demonstrates examples of officially accepted values of society, perhaps even to a greater extent than is typical of his behavior in principle ^{[5, p. 49]}. He notices such features of "representation" as the desire for self-control, artistry, mimetic abilities, attempts to regulate and manage situational aspects ^{[5, pp. 83,85]}.

By the way, there are similar characteristics among modern studies of theatricality. For example, V.N. Raikov notes such features of the phenomenon as representativeness, contextuality and performativity ^{[16, pp. 9, 10]}. Andreeva I.M. suggests such features of theatricality as demonstrativeness, publicity, entertainment, storytelling, and the duality of the actor's "I" ^{[1, p. 6]}. Researcher Olyanich A.V. notes scenic, ritualistic, deliberate, conventional, and presentational emotionality. Theatricality is realized in the role structure of discourse through the introduction of typed participants (communicative types, masks, roles) into communication ^{[12, p. 4,5]}.

Finally, I. Hoffman writes: "... in everyday life, the performer, as a rule, has the opportunity to intentionally create a false impression of almost any kind, without putting himself in the vulnerable position of an obvious liar. Communication techniques (omissions, strategic ambiguity, and critical omissions) allow a disinformer to benefit from a lie without technically uttering it" ^{[5, p. 79]}.

"Everyday theatricality", which often does not set out to deliberately deceive the interlocutor, but rather acts on a whim, sincere play, is also characterized by omission, concealment, manipulativeness, as these properties help to keep the situation under control, possibly to gain from communication. By the way, I. Hoffman notices similar functional positions in the "representations": "We tend to consider real representations to be something that was created without any specific purpose and is the unintended result of an individual's natural reaction to any facts in his particular situation" ^{[5, p. 89]}. Moreover, it is even common for a person to believe in his own ideas, to consider them his reality ^{[5, p. 90]}.

When I. Hoffman talks about examples of "representations" in modern social practice, he is talking about their ubiquity. In society, any role is "representative", it does not matter whether it is individual or team, and the role must be played according to the rules. A waiter at work should play the role of a waiter, a grocer, a tailor, a bidding organizer should perform the "signal dance" of a grocer, a tailor, a bidding organizer, with which they strive to convince their customers that they are nothing more than a grocer, a tailor, a bidding organizer. We see that "everyday theatricality" is hardly possible without "representations", without images through which it realizes its potential on the social stage of everyday life.

Analysis of the scientific potential of the term "representation"

The scientific potential of the term "representation" is as relevant to the formation of the morphological framework of "everyday theatricality" as "scenario".

The term helps to characterize practical ways of implementing elements of the life scenarios of social actors involved in everyday communication. The "presentation" does not have to be sincere, it should help to achieve specific goals of social communication. The help of "representation" consists in a special communication regulation of communication through the active use of psychological influence, persuasion, and camouflage techniques, which are quite theatrical in their external characteristics.

If we turn to dictionaries, we will notice that the features peculiar to the definition of "representation" from different research sides do not contradict the definition of "representation" by I. Hoffman.

Patrice Pavy, for example, offers several similar characteristics of "performance": he talks about some posing, flaunting, demonstration for the purpose of entertainment, involving both the stage (everything that had previously prepared the performance) and the audience (with its ability to perceive). Finally, it says that a performance is not just a performance, but there is an opportunity to temporarily make real what is not, to make real what is not, to remind our memory of it, our temporality (not just our gaze) ^{[13, pp. 247, 248]}.

The Great Russian Encyclopedia speaks of "representation" in a broad way, without directly addressing the dramatic aspect of the issue. Nevertheless, an interesting position is that "representation" is "a visual sensory image of objects and situations ... accompanied by a sense of absence of what is imagined, or special ideal formations given to consciousness, the content of which may or may not correspond to reality" ^[11]. In short, the term "representation" has a stable substantive and functional content that manifests itself in different spheres of life in a similar way. And theatricality relies on "representation" to the extent that it is able to provide a visual image that has the power to demonstrate what may not actually be, but is currently in demand as a working tool for interaction.

Yes, of course, "representation" as a phenomenon of philosophy is largely associated with the legacy of A. Schopenhauer and other thinkers who developed the problem in an ontological way, therefore we recall that Schopenhauer's "representation" is not so much a phenomenon of consciousness as a form of existence of the world itself, since it is given in contemplation to the subject. This is a world posited as an object for the subject, a world initially "oriented", addressed to a person ^[19]. The world as man sees it exists only in his mind. This remark is important for research, as it relates to the category of imagination, which is key to theatrical techniques of transformation and representation.

M. Heidegger draws attention to the fact that to imagine means "to place the present in front of oneself, to relate to oneself, to represent, and to force oneself to enter into this attitude towards oneself as a defining area..." ^{[21, p. 47]}. Given the specifics of the disclosure of "representation" from the standpoint of its ontological power, one can understand its suggestive potential in socio-cultural communication. The image suggested to the interlocutor also affects its bearer. The "performance" can be extremely convincing, which confirms its deep connection with the theatrical nature of man, who possesses the "innate" gift of persuasion and transformation.

Finally, "representation" plays a key role in a social environment where "a social personality is created in us by other people." W. James believes that there can be as many social personalities (social selves) in each individual as there are individuals who recognize him as a person and have ideas about him. A social personality is "the ideas of an individual of other people; and these ideas are perceived by the individual himself as correct and true" ^{[15, pp. 7-8]}. Guy Debord, in this regard, clarifies and develops the idea of the "society of the spectacle", believing that "the spectacle ... is a social relationship between people mediated by images" ^{[6, p. 32]}. It can be said that "everyday theatricality" (as a communication tool) operates with representations, relies on them, and thus provides a delicate balance of interests, characters, and ambitions in society.

Everyday theatricality and "persona" (K. Jung)

According to C. Jung in his work "The relationship between the ego and the unconscious," the conscious personality is "a more or less arbitrary segment of the collective psyche"; the segment consists of a sum of mental facts that are felt as personal, that is, belonging exclusively to this particular person. Personal consciousness emphasizes ownership and the original right to its contents and thus strives to create a single whole, a "person" ^{[22, pp. 64, 65]}.

Let's pay attention to how K. Jung interprets "personal" - he believes that this is a segment of the collective psyche, even if it is perceived as unique and individual. The "personal" strives to possess this segment, claims it, and builds a "persona" based on these possessive egoistic principles, but it is not free from the "collective" principle, since everything that is in the "personal" is also in the collective (the same mental patterns, patterns, content, reactions). Then you can understand why communication and interaction in society are built with the help of a "person" and not a self. The feeling of one's individuality hardly coincides with the true essence of a person, which is preserved by his self. A "persona" is formed on quite pragmatic grounds of management, control, and possession, which may explain its ability to adapt socially, and the nature of adaptation is often artistic.

The "persona" is a mask, and it's hard to ignore that. The mask is able to simulate individuality, forcing others and the subject himself to believe in this individuality, whereas in fact he simply plays a role through which the collective psyche speaks ^{[22, p. 66]}. The expressions "to assume an official appearance", "to play a social role" are related to the abilities of a person's "persona" to look one way or another, he can not only hide behind the mask of a "persona", but also use it as a barricade ^{[22, P. 98]}.

It can be said that a "person" is a complex system of relations between individual consciousness and society, designed, on the one hand, to make a certain impression on others, and, on the other, to conceal the true nature of the individual ^{[22, p. 129]}. Jung clarifies that if a person believes that hiding their true nature is unnecessary, it means that the person is so identified with their "persona" that they no longer recognize themselves.

If a person does not consider it necessary to make a certain impression on others, it means that a person does not realize the true nature of others ^{[22, P. 129]}, since society expects that each individual will play the assigned role as best as possible, and the "person" is able to satisfy this expectation.

Let us note the substantial proximity of the "persona" to the phenomenon of "everyday theatricality". Without claiming to have genuine depth (the depth of the self), the "persona" nevertheless forms an image that the person himself believes in and identifies with. Based on the collective psyche, the "persona" forms a secondary reality, a compromise education that serves as a support for a person in the external environment, building visibility in the form of a name, titles, competencies, self-representations, and so on. Moreover, not without the active influence of others ^{[22, pp. 66, 67]}.

Of course, Carl Jung is also trying to find the very path to the true self, which stands behind appearances and misconceptions about himself; this is the path of individuation, coming to himself (to the self) ^{[22, p. 95]}. It is a difficult path, because every time the processes of alienation of the self prevail, depriving the self of its reality in favor of an external role, in favor of an imaginary meaning. And then the self fades into the background, giving way to social recognition or the autosuggestive meaning of the archetype. In both cases, the collective wins ^{[22, p. 95]}.

Time after time, a person is dealing with a "persona" in himself, he does not have a clear idea of himself as a self. And this is really difficult, because trying to understand oneself as a self surpasses the power of human imagination – in this case, the part must comprehend the whole: "no matter how much we realize, there will always be an indefinite and indefinite amount of unconscious material that belongs to the totality of the self" ^{[22, p. 103]}.

A healthy state of mind implies both a "person" and a self, with a special emphasis on comprehending the self throughout the entire "inner" life ("know yourself!"). For the purposes of individuation, it is not only important for a person to distinguish between who he is and how he seems to himself and others, but it is also absolutely necessary to realize the invisible system of relations with the unconscious in order to be able to distinguish himself from it ^{[22, p. 134]}.

So, the "persona" helps to adapt, builds a complex system of relations with the outside world. This is its outstanding mission as a segment of the psyche. However, a "persona" cannot, by the mere fact of its existence, provide optimal protection in the form of one or another social mask. This requires "everyday theatricality" as a whole range of means: theatrical means of expression are needed, which by default constitute the content of the "theatrical" nature of man; artistry is needed, through which the "persona" is always different, appropriate to circumstances and challenges.

Then the "persona" acts as a kind of bridge between the worlds (inner and outer worlds), (inner and deeper worlds, the world of "archetypes"); a bridge without which the transformation of pure game potentials (the world of the self) into their theatrical refraction would be impossible. This can explain the adaptive nature of the "persona" and its extreme relevance in everyday communication culture.

Analysis of the scientific potential of the term "person"

The scientific potential of the term "person" is determined by its substantial and existential completeness. The term reflects the specifics of the segment of the psyche most often involved by a person in everyday communication, defined as "personal", inherent in a particular person as his "individuality". The unique location, the genesis of the "persona" as an element of the collective unconscious, seems important because the "theatrical" human nature on which the "persona" is based is also thought of as a phenomenon of the psyche, perhaps of the same unconscious.

The term "persona" is very apt, because originally this word meant a mask in which an actor appeared and which showed what role he was playing ^{[22, pp. 64, 65]}. If we turn to dictionaries, we will find similar characteristics with existing clarifications.

For example, P. Pavey's dictionary of theater defines a "person" through a "character" who "borrows the appearance and voice of an actor." However, the character in the ancient Greek theater was only a mask-a persona that corresponded to a dramatic role. Gradually, the word began to acquire the meaning of an animated being, a personality, and a theatrical character began to create the illusion of a person.

And if in the ancient Greek theater the actor is separated from his character, he is only a performer, not an embodiment, then later, the character becomes more and more identified with the actor who embodies him, and turns into a psychological and moral entity, which is entrusted with the creation of the identification effect (symbiosis of character and actor) ^{[13, p. 226]}.

This characteristic is notable for the fact that the properties of the "persona" in everyday human behavior suggest both a "view from the outside", splitting the role and its performer - a kind of "representation" of their state, and "full immersion", merging the role and performer – a kind of "experience" of the state.

In the Great Russian Encyclopedia, the term "person" is revealed through "personality". Several paragraphs are devoted directly to the "persona", which, in particular, deals with the persona as a fundamental concept of Roman jurisprudence. Here, a person is an individual who occupies a specific position in society, possessing, according to Cicero, four "personalities" assigned to him by nature: he possesses "reason and consciousness", i.e. signs of the human race, belongs to a certain type of character, lives in a specific environment in certain circumstances and chooses a certain profession or lifestyle. at the same time, everyone "must be true to his nature" (treatise "On Duties", book I, 109-120) ^{[2, pp. 696-698]}.

This approach to the "persona" demonstrates its social, behavioral, and presentational potential. Fidelity to nature, an image corresponding to a number of circumstances, characterizes the playful, dramatic potential of a "persona" as a "disguise" that helps to adapt among other "disguises". The characteristics of the term do not contradict, but complement each other, emphasizing in the "persona" the power of the mask as concealment and transformation.

Philosophy has been thinking about the necessity or inevitability of a person to wear a "disguise" for centuries, and in most cases the reflections are in the nature of criticism. So, for example, D.I. Dubrovsky, analyzing the nature of deception in his book, refers to maxims of La Rochefoucauld, who notes that "every person, whoever he is, tries to put on such an appearance and put on such a disguise so that he is mistaken for who he wants to appear to be; therefore, we can say that society consists of only disguises" ^{[7, p. 134]}.

Remembering J.-J. Rousseau, with his desire to "rip off masks" not only from others, but also from himself, we note the disappointment with the difficulty of this process, since, according to the philosopher, "behind a mask stripped of meat, another, even more "natural" mask, completely fused with the face, usually reveals itself" ^{[18, p. 669]}.

Guy Debord speaks of a "false consciousness" formed in the "society of the spectacle," where the mask is a necessary attribute. A false consciousness is imposed on everyday life, subordinated to the spectacle, and in the given proposed circumstances, the "illusion of meeting" takes the place of genuine "meetings". A person is unable to see the "other", he can hardly cope with his reality ^{[6, pp. 199, 200]}.

I. Kant looks optimistic against this background, according to which "all people, the more civilized they are, the more actors they become; they acquire external signs of courtesy, respect for others, modesty, selflessness, although they decidedly deceive no one, because everyone else understands perfectly well that all this does not come from the heart, but what is really very good is that things in this world go exactly like this; due to the fact that people play exactly this role, in the end, virtues, the external signs of which have been maintained only artificially for a long time, can little by little really wake up in the human soul and turn into a spiritual mood" ^{[8, p . 30]}.

It is possible to note both the destructive and positive influence of the mask, the "persona", and the social roles of which we are the bearers. Perhaps the problem lies not in the "persona mask" as such, but in the correct or incorrect use of the "persona" as a mental communication tool. "Everyday theatricality" relies on a "persona" and needs it, since "internal actors" will always be needed to perform social roles.

Conclusions:

1. It seems that the terms "scenario", "representation", "persona", each to a certain extent correspond to the meaningful potential of "everyday theatricality" as a philosophical and anthropological phenomenon. The terms reflect the existential ("persona"), functional ("representation") and psychological ("scenario") the side of human theatricality. Consequently, the terms ("scenario", "performance", "persona") can form a thesaurus of "everyday theatricality" as a phenomenon.

2. The "scenario" helps to characterize a set of psychological cliches, programmatic stereotypes of human behavior that are used by a person in everyday life, building the trajectories of his social communication.

3. "Representation" helps "scenarios" to be implemented, form and realize numerous social roles; promotes successful socio-cultural communication of people.

4. The "persona" (as an image, a disguise) forms deep mental reactions to external challenges and thus builds its image for its further embodiment. The "persona" relies on the "script" and "representation" as stable psychological tools that help it match its chosen appearance, appearance, individuality, and personality, and thus realize the potential of its existence, to a certain extent, by theatrical means of expression.

5. The interrelation of the terms is determined by their conceptual nature, related to the phenomena of the psyche and behavior, of which they are segments and whose potential they realize in practice. The "persona" responds to the deeper aspects of the psyche, preserving patterns of mental reactions to events of an internal and external order. The "scenario" involves the mental patterns of the "persona" in building a specific individual's life path. The "presentation", both individually and collectively, is able to embody "persona scenarios" on the platforms of everyday life, both in the household and in the digital communication environment.

Conclusion

The phenomenon of "everyday theatricality" can be morphologically structured. To do this, it is necessary to define a thesaurus, a terminologically verified dictionary that corresponds to the problematic field of "everyday theatricality" as a philosophical problem.

This work is an attempt to search for and analyze a number of terms of interest as revealing the substantive specifics of "everyday theatricality" as a phenomenon of philosophical anthropology. The terms "scenario", "performance", and "persona" have been selected for characterization, each of which locally reflects the sides and properties of the "theatrical" human nature.

Thanks to the work done, the potential morphological contours of "everyday theatricality" as an independent cultural phenomenon have received a certain impetus to existence, since the terms "scenario", "representation" and "person", to a certain extent, are involved in "everyday theatricality", meet its substantive and functional challenges. Nevertheless, the research, including categorical research, is expected to continue.