ADVANCING FURTHER the HISTORY of SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY: Moving Forward from Dominant Representations in Western and Soviet Psychology

History of Psychology © 2014 American Psychological Association 2014, Vol. 17, No. 1, 60–78 1093-4510/14/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0035565 ADVANCING FURTHER THE HISTORY OF SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY: Moving Forward From Dominant Representations in Western and Soviet Psychology

Fernando L. González Rey University Center of Brasília

This article discusses the works of some Soviet scholars of psychology, their theoretical positions, and the times within which their works were developed. Dominant representations of Soviet psychology and some of the main Soviet authors are revisited in the light of a blending of facts actively associated with their emergence in both Soviet and Western psychology. From the beginning, Soviet psychology was founded upon Marxism. However, the ways by which that psychology pretended to become Marxist in its philosophical basis were diverse and often contradictory. Other philosophical and theoretical positions also inﬂuenced Soviet psychologists. Different moments of that contradictory process are discussed in this article, and through this, I bring to light their interrelations and the consequences for the development of Soviet psychology. This article reinterprets several myths found within Soviet psychology, in which different theoretical representations have become institutionalized for long periods in both Soviet and Western psychology. Particular attention is given to identifying the conditions that presented Vygotsky, Luria, and Leontiev as part of the same paradigm, and which paved the way for a perception of Leontiev and his group as paralleling Vygotsky’s importance among American psychologists. Many of the sources that are used in this article were published in Soviet psychology only after the 1970s. Unlike the different and interesting works that began to appear on diverse trends in Soviet psychology, this article details in depth the articulation of topics and questions that still now are presented as different chapters in the analysis of Soviet psychology.

Keywords: Soviet psychology, cultural-historical approach, activity theory, consciousness, idealistic Russian psychology

This article aims to advance the representa- To achieve this purpose, we begin with the tion of Soviet psychology as has prevailed in the manner by which Soviet psychology began to West. This representation also corresponds with be known in the United States, due to the rele- what has dominated Soviet psychology. Some vance of American interpretations and publica- theoretical positions and authors have monopo- tion of the reception of Vygotsky and Soviet lized the political situation, gaining unjustiﬁed psychology all over the world. We deal further recognition during different historical periods in with the moments, facts, and authors of that psychology. The growing number of publica- psychology, and their interrelations, which per-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. tions, both in Russia and in the West, has suf- mit new interpretations of Soviet psychology. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualfered user and is not to be disseminated broadly. distortion, resulting from censorship, and We also discuss theoretical and methodological this situation allows us, at this moment, to raise facts and authors, which have remained in new interpretations of Soviet psychology as shadow or have been little discussed for decades well as its main protagonists. in both Soviet and Western psychology. We draw attention to those chronological moments that we consider relevant, where we consider the facts for each historical moment, Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Fernando L. González Rey, SQS 407, Bloco R, without any pretension, in order to turn them Apto 206, CEP - 70256-180; Brasília D.F. Brazil. E-mail: into the best periodization for psychology. In [email protected] our divisions, we focus on discussions, events,

60 ADVANCING FURTHER THE HISTORY OF SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY 61

and figures, which are closely related to some explanation of human behavior. The mistaken qualitative moments and ruptures within Soviet identification of Pavlov with reflexology ex- psychology. Due to the difficult historical and tended until relative recently. Bruner (1995), institutional contexts within which that psychol- one of the pioneers in the American-Soviet re- ogy developed, the changes, contradictions, and lationships in the 1960s, stated, “When Stalin heterogeneity deserve careful attention. took power in 1925, Congresses were called to Putting aside the political pressures that im- bring things into line with Marxist doctrine, pacted on Soviet psychology, this article will including one to bring psychology and the brain discuss in depth two moments that particularly sciences into line with Marxism generally and impacted on the path taken by Soviet psychol- “Pavlov” particularly” (p. 76). ogy. The first is related to the elimination of If a well-informed psychologist like Bruner idealistic philosophers and psychologists who expressed such an idea, it meant that it was not played an important role in the advent of that an isolated position, but a shared social repre- psychology, a fact that has been completely sentation on Soviet psychology that remained omitted from that history and from its interpre- alive in the West until the 1990s. Until the tations. The second concerns the peak of the 1970s, publications of Soviet psychologists political pressures on psychology that took were scarce in English, and they appeared with- place at the end of the 1940s as result of the out historical contextualization. According to purges within Soviet science, propelled by the Luria, the strongest line in Russian psychology accusations raised by Lysenko against bour- in the 1920s was Kornilov’s reactology and not geois deviation in Soviet genetics. As a result of Pavlov’s theoretical position (Luria, 1928). that period, for the first time in its history, an Luria was a member of the editorial board of the official Marxist psychology was imposed based Journal of Genetic Psychology at that time, and on Pavlov’s doctrine. he opened the path through which two of his After a discussion of those historical mo- colleagues, Vygotsky and Leontiev, also pub- ments, this article discusses in depth the post- lished articles in that journal in 1929 and 1932, Stalinist moment in Soviet psychology, which respectively (A. N. Leontiev, 1932; Vygotsky, preserves the idea of identifying Marxist psy- 1929). Despite these early publications in Eng- chology by its objectivity. After Stalin’s death, lish, the authors did not greatly impact Ameri- as the Pavlovian physiological reductionism can psychologists because of the absence of that was officially imposed for a short period references for following these positions. during the 1950s was overcome, a turning point Between 1930 and 1960, apart from the pre- took place. Here the focus was on object-based viously referred to articles, Soviet psychologists activity, in which concrete objects became the remained relatively unknown in their original essence of the definition for a Marxist Soviet works, and to get information, Americans de- psychology. The rise and fall of activity theory pended on authors who understood Russian is discussed within this complex network of (Cole, 1963). This situation explains the small psychological theory in both moments. interest in Soviet psychology in the United States at that time. At the beginning of the Representation of Soviet Psychology and 1960s, Bruner, already a well-known psycholo- Vygotsky in the West gist, began an increasing stream of correspon-

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. dence with Luria, as a result of which Bruner The ﬁrst works devoted to Russian psychol-

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. made his first visit to Moscow. Through Luria, ogy in English were published at the beginning he mainly was in contact with the Department of the 20th century. The best-known figure then of Psychology of the Moscow State University, was Pavlov, who was the first Russian author to headed by Leontiev.1 These exchanges between be published in English in the first half of the Bruner and Luria and Leontiev opened the way 20th century. As Pavlov’s studies centered on conditioned reflexes, little confusion exists in its identification as reflexology. “Reflexology” was 1 The information about the first visit of Bruner to Mos- cow was taken from the interview of Audrey Amrein- a term developed by Bekhterev, another great Beardsley with Bruner, accessed by the author through the figure of Russian neurophysiology, with the ex- site http://www.insidetheacademy.asu.edu/wp-content/ plicit proposal of replacing psychology in the uploads/2012/08/transcriptBruner.pdf 62 GONZÁLEZ REY

for an increasing curiosity about Soviet psy- tinued to monopolize the references of Ameri- chology among psychologists who were close can psychology in education and child develop- to Bruner. As a result of that first visit to Mos- ment. cow, Bruner stated, “I found these young Rus- Vygotsky’s popularity in the West owed sian scholars in cognitive science, who were more to Mind in Society than to the English battling against Pavlov in much the same way I edition of Thinking and Speech. Mind in Society had been battling against the Skinnerian ap- was edited by a group of authors (Cole, Steiner, proach” (Amrein-Beardsley, 2012,p.5). Scribner, & Souberman, 1978). This book was Bruner’s first impressions represented the ad- the more relevant reference to Vygotsky in the vent of a new representation of Soviet psychol- West for decades since that moment. ogy in the United States. As evident from the Before the publication of Mind in Society, the previously quoted statement by Bruner, this book A Handbook of Contemporary Soviet Psy- new representation was primarily modeled chology, edited by Cole and Maltzan, was pub- through Leontiev and his close circle of follow- lished in 1969 after Cole’s return from Moscow. ers, whose positions were taken by Bruner The foreword was written by Leontiev, Luria, through his own cognitive lenses that repre- and Smirnov. Interest in Soviet psychology sented a subversion of the dominant Skinnerian grew quickly at the beginning of 1970s as a positions. Bruner’s first impressions about So- result of the points of convergence between viet psychology were as follows: Soviet psychology and a group of American psychologists with its much-heralded cognitive Meanwhile—the most ironic twist of all—the Second Signal System provided Vygotsky followers in the revolution, in which Bruner was at the forefront. latter of 1930s (principally Luria, Leontiev, Sohkolov As a result of all these processes in the 1960s and Zinchenko; Vygotsky having died of tuberculosis and 1970s, Mind in Society had a high impact. in 1934) with just the ideological umbrella they needed The label “cultural-historical activity theory” to bring the cultural-historical in out of the rain. This was still not formulated in those years, but the was the time of “the battle of consciousness” in the late 1940s and 1950s. (Bruner, 1995,p.78) way Vygotsky, Leontiev, and Luria appeared as being part of the same theoretical movement Bruner mistakenly presented the group of was a strong premise for that definition. In the Leontiev as fighters of the “battle of conscious- 1980s, Vygotsky became a celebrity in Western ness,” a term that, at that time, was reduced by psychology, and many works were devoted to that group to a mere epiphenomenon of the his theoretical similarities with authors such as concrete external practical operations with ma- Mead, Dewey, and Bartlett, on which a new terial objects. psychology began in the United States. The In 1962, Michael Cole, a young American picture of Vygotsky given by American authors psychologist interested in cultural psychology, was drawn through the lenses of his interpreters. spent 1 year as a postdoctoral student of Luria at In 1985, Wertsch published Vygotsky and the Moscow State University. Cole also shared the Social Formation of Mind, making a notable representation of Bruner, which, incidentally, contribution to the interpretation on the process benefited Luria and Leontiev so much; they of Vygotsky that advanced as a result of the embodied for American psychologists the sym- previously mentioned events. bolic value of having been fighters for a new The weight given to the instrumentalism in psychology, of which Vygotsky was the pio- certain moments of Vygotsky’s theory was a This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. neer. The capitalization of such a symbolic leg- strong point in identifying Vygotsky with prag- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. acy was an unparalleled source of prestige for matism. Bruner’s (1985) next claim was his that group, which was one of the reasons for its remark on reading Vygotsky in relation to in- popularity in Western countries. Important parts strumentalism: “To begin with, I liked his in- of the history between Leontiev, Luria, and strumentalism. That is to say, I admired his way Vygotsky had not yet been published in Russian of interpreting thought and speech as instru- in those years. When the first volume of Vy- ments for the planning and carrying out of the gotsky’s work, Thinking and Speech, was pub- action” (p. 23). lished in English (in 1962), it had minimal The censorship and the priorities given by the impact on American psychology. According to different groups of power, which monopolized Glick (2011), after that publication, Piaget con- Soviet psychology at different moments of its ADVANCING FURTHER THE HISTORY OF SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY 63

history, did not permit following the chronolog- chology became a strong barrier for the discus- ical order of the writing of the psychological sion of new ideas within the circles of Vy- publications by Vygotsky. Many of Vygotsky’s gotskian studies. More recently, very interesting works remained in the family archives until the articles from the old and new generations of 1980s, when his Selected Works were first pub- Russian psychologists have been published in lished in Russian. The same happened to many the Journal of Russian & East European Psy- other authors, many of whom have never been chology. translated to English, such as Shpet, Chelpanov, Important works have been recently pub- Ananiev, Miasichev, and Abuljanova. lished in Russia and in the West that have From the beginning, the American interpre- highlighted new paths within this tradition (Ab- tations of Vygotsky treated Leontiev and Luria uljanova, 1973, 1980; Bakhurst, 2007; Brusch- as the followers who further advanced this leg- linsky, 2001, 2002; Chudnovsky, 2006, 2009; acy. In the 1980s and the 1990s, Vygotsky’s Cole & Gajdamaschko, 2010; Cole & Wertsch, formulation of the cultural-historical approach 2011; Daniels, 2012; Davydov, 2002; González turned into a sociocultural psychology. This Rey, 2009, 2011; Koshmanova, 2007; Kudria- term was used in important references to Vy- vtsev, 2006; A. A. Leontiev, 1992, 2001; Orlov, gotskian studies in the 1990s (see Bruner, 2003; Vassilieva, 2010; Yarochevsky, 2007; 1995). In the 1990s, Cole advanced the discus- Yasnitsky, 2009, 2010, 2012; Zinchenko, 1993, sion of a cultural psychology (Cole, 1998; Cole 1995, 2002, 2007). The one-sided interpreta- & Gajdamaschko, 2010). tions and omissions with regard to Soviet psy- More recently, Cole and Wertsch (2011) chology did not occur exclusively in Western stated, in relation to their appropriation of the psychology but also in Soviet psychology (Za- ideas of Zinchenko, something that, in my opin- vershneva, 2009; Zavershneva & Osipov, ion, is valid for characterizing the general inter- 2010). pretation of Soviet psychologists by American On the basis of the previously mentioned authors: “Clearly, many factors can legitimately facts, there is no doubt that a new beginning in be invoked to explain our limited understanding the interpretation of Soviet psychology is taking of Vladimir Petrovich’s ideas. Our own limited place, as a result of which the interpretation of scholarly background makes it difficult to fol- its history will be transformed, and many of the low the details needed to interpret research in concepts and issues identified as its theoretical seemingly quite separate, specialized, cultural pillars will be revisited. domains” (p. 6). My presentation of Soviet psychology here In the 1980s, however, the term “activity does not intend to be complete, which is impos- theory” gained particular relevance among Eu- sible in any historical study. My main aim is to ropean authors—thus was created the Interna- present some of the moments, authors, and facts tional Society for Cultural Research on Activity in their interrelation and theoretical unfolding, Theory in 1986 (Engestrom, Jantzen, Ruckriem, in an attempt to focus on new interpretations of Hedegaard, and Veggeti, among others). The Soviet psychology and some of its authors. This society published the Multidisciplinary News- article ignores any congruent and monolithic letter for Activity Theory as its official organ. version of the facts under analysis in an effort to From the end of the 1990s, however, activity demystify a few of the established “correct in- theory began to be more associated with the terpretations” of that history and its protago- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. cultural-historical approach in what turned into nists. Soviet psychology was a living movement This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT), and, as such, was full of contradictions, of which is the more commonly used term nowa- which different interpretations are possible. days in the West to refer to Vygotsky, Luria, Because of the complexity of the matter, this and Leontiev. article begins by presenting key topics in Soviet Despite the effort made by publications such psychology at different historical moments, sev- as Soviet Psychology and the Journal of Russian eral of which remained concealed for a long and East European Psychology to bring into time, owing to political repression and theoret- light different Soviet authors, the dominant rep- ical disputes within psychology. A historical resentation equating Vygotsky, Leontiev, and interpretation should not be considered solely in Luria as the main representatives of Soviet psy- relation to real historical facts; every historical 64 GONZÁLEZ REY

interpretation is part of a more complex para- thesis was the first Russian psychological work digm through which some phenomena gain in carrying out a historical character” (p. 19). more visibility over others. The Russian idealistic philosophers were the first to stress culture as the basis for understand- The Fight to Define a Marxist Psychology: ing the development of human consciousness. The 1920s and Its Relevance for the The idealistic philosopher Chelpanov Ulterior Paths of Soviet Psychology founded the Institute of Psychology of the State University of Moscow, which was officially in- Although the Russian Revolution had exerted augurated in 1914. Some other psychologists, increased repression from its beginning, a fact who later became outstanding Soviet psycholo- expressed very early in the repression of the gists, such as Blonsky and Kornilov, were his sailors’ uprising in Kronstad, the Russian Rev- disciples at that time. Chelpanov invited his olution also represented, at the beginning, a disciple and collaborator, Gustav Shpet, one of time of creation in the more diverse areas of the more brilliant Russian psychologists, to join social life. Psychology was no exception. Until him in the Institute of Psychology from the very the middle of the 1920s, the development of beginning. psychology represented a very rich and plural- In 1920, Shpet organized the Department of istic period, within which polemics actively Ethnical Psychology. This was an important arose as a result of the active search for a step toward organically integrating culture into Marxist psychology. From the beginning of the the teaching of psychology. According to 1920s, idealistic positions in psychology began Zinchenko (2007), “Vygotsky was Shpet’s stu- to lead to an ideological connotation. However, dent at the Shanyavsky People’s University, and idealistic scientists, who contributed to the ad- he attended Shpet’s seminars for two years” (p. vancement of Russian psychology from the end 212). Because of these idealistic authors, topics of the 19th century, continued to freely defend on culture, language, and consciousness became their points of view during the first years after relevant to Soviet psychology some years later, the revolution. particularly in Vygotsky’s work. The influence of neurophysiology and of ide- At the beginning of the 1920s, reflexology alistic philosophy represented the main two and psychology advanced in parallel in Petro- poles of influence on Soviet psychology until grad and Moscow. However, the idealistic basis the middle of the 1920s. Despite his relevance on which psychology advanced in Moscow was for psychology in Russia and abroad, Pavlov led by Chelpanov, who found strong resistance was not a psychologist and never intended to be. from his own disciples, mainly Kornilov and Reflexology, proposed by Bekhterev, emerged Blonsky. The Kornilov–Chelpanov polemic had as an alternative to psychology as a discipline. its peak during the First Russian Congress of Bekhterev inaugurated the Institute of Petrograd Psycho Neurology, held in 1923, when Korni- for the Study of Brain and Psychical Activity, lov strongly defended the need to advance fur- where he was surrounded by a group of disci- ther on the definition of a Marxist psychology. ples, some of whom were psychologists who would become relevant in the coming years, After the congress, Chelpanov was replaced by such as Lazursky, Ananiev, and Miasichev. Kornilov as the director of the Institute of Psy- The influence of Russian idealistic philoso- chology. Kornilov gained political and institu- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. phy on psychology was suppressed in Soviet tional space in early Soviet psychology. He This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. psychology from the first half of the 1920s up to founded reactology, which, unlike reflexology, the 1980s. The first chairs of psychology within focused on external influences as the basis of departments of philosophy were ruled by ideal- behavior. Luria and Leontiev were part of Kor- istic theoretical positions, and appeared simul- nilov’s group at that time. One year later, Vy- taneously in the universities of Moscow and gotsky joined that group by invitation of Kor- Leningrad in 1863 (Budilova, 1983). Among nilov. the idealistic philosophers devoted to teaching Luria (1928) commented on Soviet psychol- psychology was M. M. Troitski, who occupied ogy at that time as follows: the chair of psychology at the University of The psychologists as a rule share the objective posi- Moscow. According to Budilova, “his doctoral tions of physiologists but carry on their work on a ADVANCING FURTHER THE HISTORY OF SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY 65

much broader basis, approaching psychology from the given to that concept, whether social or individ- point of view of that structural behavior which is ual. determined by social conditions. To that wing belong most of the Russian psychologists who do not accept Nevertheless, Vygotsky’s thought was more the mechanistic point of view of the reflexologists. It contradictory and creative than that of his fel- will suffice in this connection to mention the names of lows within Kornilov’s group, due, to a large Professor Kornilov, Professor Blonski (his psycholog- extent, to Vygotsky’s rich cultural, philosophi- ical work is of a distinctly genetic character), Professor cal, and psychological background. Among Vy- Basov and L. S. Vygotsky. (p. 347) gotsky’s theoretical influences, that of his pro- Note that Luria did not mention Leontiev, fessor and later colleague, Shpet, deserves who was at the Institute before Vygotsky. special attention. Shpet seemed to be the main Luria’s high opinion of Vygotsky can be deter- theoretical influence in Vygotsky’s representa- mined here, because he had only been a member tion of psychology. Shpet’s name has been of the laboratory for 4 years. The quotation brought to light only very recently (Zavialov, makes clear that behavior is understood within a 2009; Zinchenko, 2002, 2007, 2009). As stimulus–reaction scheme, which was similar to Zinchenko (2007) stated, that defended by behaviorism at the same time. Despite all these connections, there is only one refer- After the mysterious death of Bekhterev in ence to Shpet in Vygotsky’s works (in the Psychology 1927, the institutional and political power of of Art), and even this is only in passing. And Shpet’s books Phenomenon and Meaning (1914), Aesthetic reflexology began to decrease in the Soviet Fragments (1922), and The Inner Form of Word Union, whereas Kornilov and his group gained (1927), in which he discussed thinking and language, increasing relevance. thought and word, meaning and sense and external and The divergences, opening discussions, and the inner form of a word were all published signifi- cantly earlier than Vygotsky’s Thinking and Speech different orientations that characterized Soviet (1934). (p. 212) psychology during the first half of the 1920s began to change in the second half of that de- The link between Shpet and Vygotsky has cade when idealistic representatives of psychol- been largely ignored in Soviet and Western ogy were excluded from Soviet psychology. representations of Vygotsky’s thought. This The theoretical objective position defended by link represents a historical fact and is also a very Kornilov, within which the social appeared to important theoretical point that reflects the roots be identified as an external stimulus, was the of Vygotsky’s thought. This can be associated beginning of an objective psychology ruled by a with his advancing positions at the end of his social determinism of behavior as synonymous life in relation to that period defined by his with Marxist psychology. Kornilov’s position followers as “cultural-historical theory” influenced his younger collaborators, a mark (González Rey, 2011; A. A. Leontiev, 1992; that was present in certain moments of Vy- Miller, 2011; Yasnitsky, 2012). The historical gotsky’s work and that came to characterize and facts and events involved in that change remained unknown. However, it is a very curious dominate Leontiev’s conception of activity the- fact that Rubinstein invited Vygotsky to teach at ory. This influence is clear in the following Hertzen’s Pedagogical Institute, whereas the statement by Vygotsky (1995): latter’s followers remained in Kharkov. It is true that the sign in the beginning is a means of Toward the end of the 1920s and the begin- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. communication and only later becomes a means of ning of 1930, a new theoretical representation This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to bepersonal disseminated broadly. behavior, it is completely evident that cul- was in the process in Soviet psychology, partic- tural development, based on the use of signs and the sign’s inclusion in the general system of behavior ini- ularly through Vygotsky’s and Rubinstein’s tially takes place in a social, external way. . . . The publications. It seems as if these authors, by primary psychology of the function of the word is a different ways, attempted to go beyond the pre- social psychology and if we want to know how the vailing interpretation of Marxist psychology as word functions in individual behavior, we should an- an objective psychology grounded in behavior. alyze, first and foremost, its prior function in the social Rubinstein (1964) and Bozhovich (1968) were behavior of the person. (p. 147; emphasis added) the first Soviet psychologists to point out that The frequency with which the word “behav- Vygotsky and Leontiev could not be equated as ior” is used in the quotation shows the relevance part of a similar theoretical paradigm: 66 GONZÁLEZ REY

Lately this concept arises between us as a “line of still ruled by its protagonists, as evident Vygotsky” [the author referred to the concept of inter- in the different psychological positions nalization] while the dense and varied theoretical conception of Vygotsky, in any way can be reduced to the that, within the materialism, continued internalization. . . . This concept is used at this moment their contradictory movements in those by Leontiev and his followers in Soviet psychology, years. who understand “internalization” as the “mechanism” by which our internal psychical activity is formed from New Paths of Soviet Psychology in the our external material activity. (Rubinstein, 1964, pp. 338–339; my remark in brackets) 1930s and 1940s: The Consequences of Stalin’s Purges on Scientific Institutions This quotation and the other points raised Over Psychology thus far illustrate the complexity and main movements that existed at the time. In order to At the beginning of the 1930s, psychology give a more balanced picture of the develop- continued to be pluralistic, but in a different ment of Soviet psychology in the 1920s, it is way from that of the early 1920s. Diversity was important to highlight the following aspects, alienated within a Marxist definition of psychol- which summarize some of the main arguments ogy. At the end of the 1920s, a new force that need to be considered: emerged in the figure of Rubinstein. Rubinstein • Since the beginning of this decade, the returned from Germany in 1913 and worked openness and diversity that characterized first as a professor and later as Chair of Psy- psychology in the first years after the chology in the Faculty of Philosophy of the October Revolution began to suffer the University of Odessa. In 1930 Rubinstein was political pressure that resulted from con- invited to head the Chair of Psychology of Hert- sidering idealistic thinkers as enemies of zen’s Pedagogical Institute in Leningrad. the revolution. The symbolical construc- The 1930s saw the peak of Stalinist repres- tion of the enemy with its terrible conse- sion. The forced collectivization of the kulaks, quences for the Soviet society had begun. the purges within the army and the party, and As a result, idealistic philosophers and the massive deportation of people to Siberia for psychologists were banished from scien- forced work characterized this decade. This sit- tific institutions, and consequently, from uation created a climate of fear and suspicion, history. which harmed all spheres of Soviet society. • At that time, Vygotsky was not a lonely Consequently, many persons and social institu- fighter, as Leontiev and Luria joined him. tions in the Soviet Union became strangely mo- The three were part of Kornilov’s group tivated toward the repression of their col- and supported its identification of Marx- leagues. Scientific institutions were no ist psychology as an objective psychol- exception. ogy. They also supported his mechanic In the 1930s, the Politburo of the Communist sociobehavioral determinism. The two Party began directly commanding all the social forces in dispute who were defining spheres on the “correct ideological position.” In Marxist psychology in that decade were psychology, this position was concretized Bechterev’s reflexology and Kornilov’s through the decrees by which the Communist reactology. Party constantly intervened in the development • In the second half of the decade, Vy- of psychology, thus placing enormous pressure This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. gotsky abandoned his emphasis on emo- on the discipline. The decree that most affected This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. tions, fantasy, will, personality, and psychology in this decade was that against pe- imagination, which characterized “Psy- dology in 1936, as a result of which Vygotsky chology of Art,” and his first works on and other important Soviet psychologists such defectology. He went on to focus on sign, as Basov were strongly criticized by their col- mediation, internalization, and higher leagues, and pedology was banned from Soviet psychical functions in what marked an psychology. Leontiev was one of those who “instrumental-cognitive turning point” in severely criticized Vygotsky (A. N. Leontiev, his work. 1937/1998). Each of the party decrees de- • No official position was assumed on psy- manded a reorientation of psychology, engen- chology in this decade. Psychology was dering serious difficulties in its development. ADVANCING FURTHER THE HISTORY OF SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY 67

In 1930, Leontiev resigned from the Acad- At the beginning of the 1940s, despite the emy of Communist Education of the Union increasing climate of repression as a result of State Institute of Communism. In 1932, Luria Stalinism, a new approach to psychology, in was appointed as the Section Head of the Ukrai- which subject and consciousness were seriously nian Psychological Institute in Kharkov, and taken into account, gained institutional force. Leontiev the head of the Department of Child This occurred when Rubinstein was nominated and Developmental Psychology (Bostmanova, as the head of the University of Moscow’s De- Guseva, & Ravich-Schervo, 1994). Shortly after partment of Psychology in 1942, and 3 years Leontiev and Luria moved to Kharkov, Bozhov- later, in 1945, as the head of the Department of ich and Zaporozhets joined them to form the Psychology of the Institute of Philosophy of the Kharkov group. The reasons underlying Vy- Soviet Union’s Academy of Sciences, positions gotsky’s separation from his disciples in Mos- that he occupied simultaneously.2 Once in Mos- cow remain obscure, and different hypothetical cow, Rubinstein invited some of his students explanations exist—a matter that is beyond the from Leningrad, such as Yarochevsky and scope of this article. Today, the profound theo- Komm, to join him at the Department of Psy- retical contradictions between the position of chology of the university. At the same time, he the Kharkov group and Vygotsky at that time invited Leontiev and others from the Kharkov are broadly recognized (Galperin, 1995; A. A. group, such as Galperin and Zaporozhets (Br- Leontiev, 1992; Zaporozhets, 1995). In his later uschlinsky, 2001; State University of Moscow’s period of life, Vygotsky emphasized speech, archives on how Rubinshtein was expulsed, meaning, emotions, consciousness, and per- 1989). ezhivanie (emotional experience), rather than Rubinstein’s Basis of Psychology, originally practical activity, which was criticized by Le- published in 1935, was highly appreciated by ontiev and the Kharkov group. Soviet psychologists at the epoch, as evidenced At the same time, Rubinstein’s prestige in- by the comments of almost all scientists who creased. Paradoxically, his theoretical position reviewed the book. Since the first edition, how- had important points of contact with those that ever, there have been critical comments on its were defended by Vygotsky in his last works. ideological problems (Bogdanshikov, 2008; Ar- As Bruschlinsky (1997) stated, chives University of Moscow, 1989). The 1946 edition was the object of severe criticism, which In his “Philosophical Notebooks” Lenin, in particular, gained new meaning as a result of the ongoing came to the important conclusion that “human consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but it purges in scientific institutions. The departure creates it.” Such a conclusion of Lenin (which imme- point was Lysenko’s accusation of bourgeois diately began to mention Vygotsky, Rubinstein and deviations in Soviet genetics, from which other Soviet psychologists) caused not little displea- started a truly “ideological cleansing” in all the sure to official Soviet philosophers and ideologues, Soviet sciences, known as Lysenkoism.3 because it clearly contradicted the primitive dogmatic theory of reflection, impeding its concretization in the The purges fostered by Lysenkoism reached science. (p. 6) their peak at the end of 1940s. Rubinstein was The principle of reflection was one of the pillars that supported the dominant Marxist def- 2 Rubinstein was the first Soviet psychologist to be This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. inition of psychology. It was the cornerstone of elected as Member Correspondent of the Academy of Sci-

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ences of the Soviet Union. After him, only Kravkov, in Leontiev’s activity theory, which, while defend- 1946, and Lomov, in 1976, achieved this status. The Acad- ing the identity between the internal and the emy of Science was the center in which academic politics external structure of activity, stresses internal and decisions in the Soviet Union took place, which, of activity as a reflection of the external. Unlike course, were always mediated by the Soviet political circles. 3 This term is attributed to the expansion of Lysenko’s Leontiev, both Vygotsky and Rubinstein tran- position oriented toward the definition of a Marxist genetic, scended, at certain moments of their work, the which led to an ideological purge in all of the Soviet limitations of the concept of reflection, while sciences at the time. As a result, the brilliant Soviet aca- attempting to create a psychological theoretical demic Vavilov was removed as director of the Institute of Genetics of the Academy of Sciences. He was accused of system on a new basis, something that none of making a reactionary separation between theory and prac- them achieved during their life. tice (Sheehan, 1985). 68 GONZÁLEZ REY

its main victim in psychology, as he was ac- An important part of the Kharkov group was cused for his cosmopolitanism, a term in fash- organized around Leontiev, who held the Chair ion in the Lysenko discourse. The accusations of Psychology in the Faculty of Philosophy. against Rubinstein were based on the “ideolog- Theoretically, Rubinstein focused on personal- ical deviation” of the book and in the way taken ity and consciousness in an attempt to bring into by the Chair of Psychology of the Moscow State light the person as a complex system. This was University under his direction. A session was the main topic for defining psychology as Marx- held by the Scientific Council of the Faculty of ist. This question had been largely ignored in Philosophy to discuss the accusations against Soviet psychology. After Rubinstein’s removal, Rubinstein. Rubinstein was later removed from this was once again omitted from Leontiev’s institutional positions. The opportunism among agenda. the Soviet psychologists was evident in the kind As Radzijovsky (1988) pointed out, of arguments used against Rubinstein (Archives all the richness expressed in the ideas of the Marxist of Lomonosov State University). I call attention classical authors in regards to the topic of the subjec- 4 to the criticism raised by Galperin and Leontiev tive “perezhivanie” were not interpreted in an ade- quate way by the Soviet philosophers; it was not cre- in that historical session. The former stated, ated a Marxist anthropology in us; the concept of subjective “perezhivanie” did not exist in our philo- Freudism was not politically evaluated in relation to its sophical language. Precisely for this reason the transit current role in America. . . . but rather the author from the philosophy to the psychology was very diffi- seemed to be making a radical critique of Freud, in fact cult. (p. 126) he used some of the more relevant of Freud’s concepts in regards to passion. (Rubinstein, 1989, p. 58) The convergence between Vygotsky and Ru- Leontiev, in his turn, pointed out, binstein’s works between 1931 and 1934, when both of them focused on the person instead of that in the Chair of Psychology are not discussed on the person’s psychological functions, had not important national political documents or concepts . . . received enough attention either in Russian or that is, they had not discussed the matters published in Western psychology. The prevailing represen- national relevant newspapers such as Pravda and Cul- ture and Life about the question discussed here today, tation about the incompatibility between them the cosmopolitism. (State University of Moscow’s ar- was stimulated to a great extent by Leontiev, chives on how Rubinstein was expulsed, 1989,p.61) and by some of his closer followers in the 1960s. Both positions were based on the language of In summary, the 1930s and the 1940s saw Lysenkoism; instead of posing scientific and psychology increasingly suffering the pressures administrative questions, they addressed ideo- and intervention of political power. First was logical problems, something that might have the decree of pedology, which resulted in many had terrible consequences at that time, as clearly works of thinkers such as Vygotsky and Basov demonstrated in the tragic destiny suffered by remaining unpublished and their works not be- Shpet, who had been given the death penalty ing used in the official programs of psychology, only a few years earlier (Zinchenko, 1999). such as the psychology of art. In the programs Although the theory of Leontiev was also for psychological doctoral studies, the only ref- criticized for its ideological deviations at the erence to Vygotsky until the 1970s was The same session, his criticism against Vygotsky History of the Development of the Higher Psy- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. with regard to pedology (A. N. Leontiev, 1937/ chological Functions, in which Vygotsky was This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual1998 user and is not to be disseminated broadly. ), together with his position against Rubin- nearer to Leontiev than in any of his other stein, is an important antecedent for judging the works. The Soviet hegemonic representation on role that he played some years later in Soviet psychology. After the removal of Rubinstein in 4 This concept has been translated into English as “emo- 1949, Teplov replaced him for a short time as tional experience.” However, this term has a broader mean- head of the Chair of Psychology of the Faculty ing. In Vygotsky’s definition, it represents a complex unit of Philosophy. In 1951, that responsibility within which the environment and the child’s structure of passed to Leontiev, who began his meteoric personality emerge as one self-regulative psychological unit of development, in which cognitive and affective dimen- political career in Soviet psychology (Archives sions integrate as a new quality of personality (see Yaro- of the Moscow State University, 1989). chevsky, 2007). ADVANCING FURTHER THE HISTORY OF SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY 69

Vygotsky in Soviet psychology was defined by Two different kinds of reductionism simulta- Leontiev and his group. Activity theory began neously converged in the Soviet psychology to gain increasing force and visibility within during these years: (a) a physiological reduc- Soviet psychology by the end of the 1940s. The tionism, officially established during this time; advent of a new moment of Soviet psychology and (b) a reductionism centered on object- was close. oriented activity that progressed through the powerful Department of Psychology headed by Leontiev. This widespread orientation toward a The Decades of the 1950s and the 1960s: natural objective science represented a huge The Emergence of Activity Theory as the obstacle in further advancing a new ontological New Marxist Psychology definition5 of the human psyche, as Vygotsky, Rubinstein, Ananiev, Bozhovich, and Miasi- Lysenko’s “right Marxist definition of genet- chev had attempted. ics” led to the official support of the definition After Stalin’s death in 1956, the 20th Con- of a “Marxist version” in all the Soviet sci- gress of the Communist Party decreed the re- ences. On the basis of a Party Decree at beginning of the 1950s, a meeting was held structuring of Soviet life, which placed new between the Soviet Union’s Academy of Sci- demands on Soviet psychology and saw a new ences and the Academy of Medical Sciences, era in its development. What became evident known as the “Pavlov’s Session.” The meeting after Stalin’s death was a period of decreased defined Pavlov’s theory on conditioned reflexes direct political interference in science by the as the scientific basis from which a Marxist Politburo of the Communist Party. However, psychology should be constructed (Bostmanova the resolutions and priorities established at that et al., 1994). time as a result of political interferences con- The physiological jargon imprinted itself tinued to influence psychology for some time. again in the published psychological works. The Because social institutions were more resistant reaction against psychology as a science was so to change than other areas of social life, and pronounced in “Pavlov’s Session” that Budi- because institutional mechanisms remained lova, Lomov, and Shorojova (1975) observed, alive during the times of political interferences, “In the discussion many of the participants re- Stalinism survived. jected the alternative of an objective study of New political agendas prioritized the im- psyche, which led them to propose the replace- provement of education and of the quality of ment of psychology by the physiology of higher specialists in different areas of the productive nervous activity” (p. 12). sphere. In addition, the ghosts of the ideological Subjective topics developed by Vygotsky and vigilance and of the idealistic and bourgeois Rubinstein, such as emotions, imagination, deviation remained as references for the scien- sense, and personality, subsequently disap- tific functioning of institutions. peared from Soviet psychology. Only Bozhov- ich’s team, the disciples of Rubinstein in Mos- 5 To avoid the metaphysical connotation of the term cow, and Ananiev and Miasichev in Leningrad “ontology” as the universal essence of being, the concept is continued theorizing on personality, but even used here to emphasize the different qualities of such topics

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. they retained physiological jargon in their writ- that became intelligible through the theoretical construc-

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. tions resulting from different scientific domains. The way in ings. which the term is used in this work does not have any As Abuljanova and Bruchlinsky (1989) pretension to define knowledge as a representation of an stated, external given being. The knowledge represents a way of intelligibility, which permits a path of new concepts and Focused on the discussions about the object of psy- practices on which the legitimization of scientific theories is chology in its relation to the theory of the reflection grounded. At the same time, the recognition of different and in its relation with physiology, psychologists did theoretical definitions that coexist in any scientific realm not take into account personality either theoretical or impedes a new return to the metaphysic, as the position is methodological as the basis for the definition of the based on a unique and universal principle. It seems to have object of the psychology: psyche as quality of the brain taken place in the positions held by some radical social and reflection of the world left to be seen as quality of constructionists for whom all human phenomena are ex- the person, as personality. (p. 15) plained as discursive practices (Gergen, 2006). 70 GONZÁLEZ REY

The reorientation of psychology toward edu- jargon as the basis of an objective Marxist psy- cation and the emphasis on such topics as moral chology emerged. Psychological works mimet- and professional preparation received high pri- ically employed the institutionalized terms of ority. As a consequence, topics such as person- activity theory. Concepts such as object, action, ality, learning, and development were again goal, and internalization replaced physiological foregrounded within Soviet psychology. How- terms as the foundational principles of Marxist ever, materialism as doctrine still prevailed over psychology. Psychical processes began to be dialectics, a fact that, together with the domi- treated as intellectual operations originating nant social subjectivity of psychological insti- from external operations. This treatment per- tutions, helped the representation of an objec- sisted throughout Leontiev’s theoretical trajec- tive psychology remain synonymous with tory, even in his last relevant publication, Ac- Marxist psychology. The traditional Soviet cul- tivity, Consciousness, and Personality: ture, ruled by its interest to be in a “correct “Moreover, it has been demonstrated that inter- ideological position,” moved from reflexologi- nal thought processes are nothing but the result cal reductionism—which became the symbol of of internalization and specific transformation of the “old times”—to a new way of sustaining the external practical activity, and that a stable tran- ideal of an objective science, by understanding sit from one form of activity to the other exists” the human psyche as a reflection of a given (A. N. Leontiev, 1975, p. 44; my translation concrete reality. Nothing was more sensitive to from Russian). this representation than the idea of practical These few lines summarized, to a significant activity with objects introduced by Leontiev’s extent, the focus on external practical actions as activity theory: the source of psychological processes, understood by Leontiev as internal activity. This fo- At first glance it seems that the representation about the cus had not only a theoretical basis but also an object-based nature of the psyche relates only to the particular sphere of cognitive processes; that in relation ideological ground, as Galperin (1984) clearly to the spheres of needs and emotions, this representa- stressed: “At the time we were confronted by tion does not extent. This, however, is not so. (A. N. two dangers: behaviorism and subjectivism. To Leontiev, 1975,p.86)6 avoid subjectivism it was necessary to keep constantly in mind the idea of the primacy of Activity theory progressively gained a central 7 institutional and political status in the wake of external activity” (p. 59). The emphasis on external, practical activity Leontiev’s rapid political ascension. His politi- that transformed Leontiev’s thesis into an ideo- cal career peaked in 1963 when he received the logical principle for the development of Marxist Lenin Prize, a political distinction that bolstered psychology was attributed to Marx. Through his political strength. It was then that Bruner, this ideological metamorphosis, activity became Cole, and, later, Wertsch visited the Soviet an ontological concept, sacredly situated at the Union for the first time. center of Marxist psychology. Although Marx Although Basov and Rubinstein were the first emphasized practical activity, specifically, work Soviet psychologists to dabble in the concept of activity, he did so with regard to a different activity, Leontiev transformed a specific activ- problem type. Unlike Leontiev, his emphasis ity type, practical activity with objects, into the did not aim to reduce the genesis of the human core tenet of his theory. Instead of focusing on

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. mind to practical operations with objects. Leon- the unity of consciousness and activity as recip- This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualrocal, user and is not to be disseminated broadly. interwoven moments as Rubinstein did, Leontiev interpreted that unity, namely, in its 6 The English translation equates the term objective to movement from activity to consciousness, as a object-based nature. The second term is the one used in the original Russian version and the one I consider more fitting reflection of reality (Zinchenko, 2002). because Leontiev referred to a primary objectivity defined In the 1960s, activity theory was consolidated by concrete material objects. into a mature version of a “Marxist psychol- 7 The Russian version of this article was published in ogy.” The new theoretical terminology resulted 1983 as a chapter in the book A. N. Leontiev and modern psychology: A collection of articles in memory of A. N. from the dominance of activity theory in the Leontiev (pp. 240–244; taken from the step note that ap- 1960s that replaced the physiological jargon peared in the English version published in the Soviet that had been dominant. A new psychological Union). ADVANCING FURTHER THE HISTORY OF SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY 71

tiev’s work was characterized by his attempt to The lack of attention to the subjective side of import, mimetically, Marx’s philosophical con- mental processes was a defining characteristic cepts into psychology. It is interesting as Leon- of Leontiev’s Activity Theory; the activity to tiev progressively quoted more of Marx and which he referred is grounded in concrete op- Lenin, leaving aside the references to Vygotsky erations with concrete objects. and other psychological theories. This trend was Although Leontiev centered on a strictly in- especially acute in his last book, Activity, Con- strumental definition of psychical function, he sciousness, and Personality, in which there is fell into a naturalistic trap when he attempted to virtually no reference to Vygotsky. explain human motivation. As he did not rec- Leontiev (1975) stated, “In this lies the idea ognize a specific ontological character of the of Lenin’s requirement [about reflection] that psyche, identifying the psyche as internalized we go not from sensation to the external world operations, he could not explain human needs as but from the external word toward sensing, being psychological, which forced him to iden- from the external word as primary to subjective tify need as a natural state of the organism. The psychological phenomena as secondary” (p. dominant scheme “activity-object” completely 8 49). excluded the subject of activity and its genera- Leontiev’s designated activity, given the abil- tive function: “Need is only a state of necessity ity to explain the psyche in terms of external of the organism that in itself is not capable of operations, was the only exclusive means to giving rise to any specific activity . . . Only as a achieve a materialistic representation of psy- result of its encounter with the object corre- chological processes. Doing so enabled him to sponding to it, it is able to become capable of adhere wholly to Lenin’s formulation of reflec- directing and regulating activity” (A. N. tion, an ontological principle that led to under- Leontiev, 1975, p. 87). That definition remains stand psychical functions by their nature as imprisoned within a naturalistic-social dichot- identical to the external operation in which they omy, in which need is biologically understood find its genesis through the internalization. by genesis, whereas the object is social, but Koshmanova (2007) pinpointed an interest- given a priori of the human activity. The author ing difference between Vygotsky and Leontiev: attempted to solve this dichotomy through a “However, to my mind, the Vygotskian notion mechanical way, by the encounter of a given a of activity seems different. In those rare cases priori need with the also given a priori object, as when Vygotsky spoke about human activity, he a result of which need becomes psychical. used the notion merely as an explanatory prin- Only after the meeting of need with its object ciple, but for Leontiev it was an object of re- does the need become a motive without any search” (p. 69). Evidence indicates that Leontiev’s concrete reference to a change in its structure. Based on definition of activity is imprisoned within a very this, Leontiev defined motive as the object of narrow circle of practical actions; any psycho- activity. Human creativity, fantasy, and imagi- logical process, function, or structure originates nation do not configure psychical activity, in practical activities with objects. Activity the- which, according to Leontiev, is reduced, in the ory did not explain how internalized operations understanding of motive, to being a mere instru- become part of a subjective system. This objec- mental device; activity is understood in this definition as the link between the object and the

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. tive character that Leontiev ascribed to his the- need and as the way through which external

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individualory user and is not to be disseminatedwas broadly. criticized by some of his closest followers and collaborators: operations become internal as result of internalization. Activity is a self-regulated system that Essentially, for a long time we were forced to be replaces the person as its subject, as a result of content with the fact that some external correlations were established between activity and mental pro- which the subjective processes of the subject are cesses, for example, noting that given such and such not taken into account. For this reason, the speciﬁc characteristics of activity, or such and such a structure, such and such a motivation of activity, and so forth, such and such changes in mental processes 8 From the English edition (Leontiev, 1978, p. 30). The passage occur, although the mechanism of these changes and in English was not fully quoted because of the distorted the very nature of these mental processes were never meaning of one word that, in turn, altered the meaning of studied in particular. (Zaporozhets, 1995,p.14) the entire passage. 72 GONZÁLEZ REY

human being is a biological creature whose psychological activity, because it contains psy- psychical processes take place in terms of its chological components responsible for its psy- activities. As Davydov (1981) clearly pointed chological sense. This idea constituted the core out, “Objects themselves (emphasis by Davy- of his famous principle concerning the unity dov) guide the transformations of this activity in between consciousness and activity: Activity is the process of the subject practical contacts with a psychological concept not because it signifies them” (p. 14). the cornerstone for defining all psychological The concept of activity, as defined by Leon- processes—as Leontiev proposed—but because tiev, marks the cornerstone of a theoretical sys- it embodies the subjective processes of contem outside of which its application is mean- sciousness. ingless. The objective character of the activity The consequences of activity theory’s ideo- concept was narrowly followed by most of Le- logical character until the mid-1970s are re- ontiev’s more faithful followers. Elkonin (1995) vealed in the topics and language employed in stated, the articles published since the beginning of the The idea of this so-called internal—or, I might better 1960s in the main Soviet journal of psychology, say—intellectual activity has become confused with Questions of Psychology. In their analysis on the question of the division of any activity, including that production, Matiushkin and Kuzmina intellectual activity, into an orienting and an executive (1983) asserted, component. This division seems to me to be real not only for external, practical activity, that is, for an In the category of activity was included everything: activity accomplishing some practical task by out- needs and motivation, psychological states and psy- wardly changing things, but also for activity that we chological qualities of personality, as well as the dif- call intellectual. (p. 32) ferent kind of human behaviors and actions. . . . Ac- tivity is taken as the unique category of Marxist In Elkonin’s quotation, it is possible to see psychology. Other psychological concepts like com- two main characteristics of Leontiev’s objective munication, personality, and consciousness are consid- reductionism: first, the direct relationship be- ered only through the prism of the activity. (p. 9) tween external and internal activity, and second, At that time, minimal inquiries into the fields the reduction of internal activity to intellectual of clinical, health, and social psychologies were operations without regard for affective psycho- evident. These fields were incompatible with logical functions. Such a reductionism in the the language of activity theory. Nevertheless, understanding of internal activity fueled the dis- some groups—specifically, those led by proportionate focus on the study of cognitive Ananiev and Miasichev in Leningrad that were functions that prevailed until the mid-1970s in oriented to the study of social, engineering, and empirical inquiries anchored in activity theory. institutional psychology—opposed this reduc- Since the end of the 1950s, renowned Soviet tionism. Miasichev (1960) also brought impor- psychologists (Rubinstein, Ananiev, Bozhov- tant insights to clinical psychology. Bozhov- ich, and Miasichev among others) have criti- ich’s group studied motivation and personality cized Leontiev. Rubinstein (1964) stated, on the basis of Vygotsky’s theoretical princi- They [Leontiev and his group] understand as internal- ples. Another important group committed to the ization the “mechanism” as result of which our psy- study of personality and motivation was that chical internal activity resulted from our material external activity. The principles [in Vygotsky’s formed by Rubinstein’s disciples, headed by This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. definition] we have formulated above suffer here a Antsiferova, Abuljanova, and Bruschlinsky. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to bedistortion disseminated broadly. from which results that insightful and im- In sketching the situation of the Soviet psy- portant principles about the priority of practical activ- chology for decades, Abuljanova (1973) ity and its role in the formation of theoretical mental stressed, activity acquires an inappropriate character . . . Any external material activity of man already contains in Despite the fierce polemics between those addicted to itself psychological components through which that a sociopsychological explanation of the psyche and the activity is regulated. (pp. 339–349; author’s translation supporters of the physiological or cybernetic explana- from Spanish). tion, the position of both groups is identical. The attempt to materialize the psyche or assign it the ma- Rubinstein’s remark touches on an important teriality through its identification with something dif- idea overlooked for a long time in Soviet psy- ferent reveals the antidialectical character of this form chology: Any external activity is in itself a of knowledge, the inability to apply dialectic to the ADVANCING FURTHER THE HISTORY OF SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY 73

discovery of the specificity of psychic phenomenon. (p. Many of the most relevant Soviet psychologists 49). of that time, including Bruschlinsky, Galperin, The one-sided position of the theory of ac- Pushkin, Menchiskaya, Tijomirov, Nepom- tivity implies a reductionist view of subjectiv- nichaya, and Farapanova, among others, partic- ity, which is reduced to the subjective images of ipated in the congress proceedings. the external given objects. As Leontiev (1975) In her presentation, Nepomnichaya (1977) remarked, “In the process generated by these highlighted, relations, objects are posited as subjective im- The realization of the “activity approach” which had ages in the human brain, as consciousness” (p. huge relevance for the development of a materialistic 31). The ambiguity of such a claim is high, as it psychology was developed in such a way that led to a has everything that has to do with subjectivity in unilateral and limited representation of the object of Leontiev’s work. Consciousness seems to be psychology. The object of psychology was split into different parts; the thinking, sensory processes and reduced in this claim to the subjective in the activity split personality and personality was employed human brain. The emphasis on consciousness in a narrow way, reducing itself to the motives and over activity that had characterized the works of leaving out other important dimensions of the subject Zinchenko in the last fighting years had not taken as a whole. (pp. 72–73) been casual, though he had been a close collab- The concept of personality maintained a no- orator of Leontiev. ticeably secondary and irrelevant status within In the mid-1970s, Soviet psychology began a activity theory until the 1975 publication of new important chapter as the result of several Activity, Consciousness, and Personality,in events that took place in those years, among which Leontiev established new theoretical av- which were the death of Leontiev and the dis- enues for understanding his previous definition placement of political power from the Moscow of personal sense. These avenues were promis- State University to the Institute of Psychology ing for the study of personality and introduced of the Soviet Academy of Sciences. The latter new “life” to subsequent inquiries of personal- institution was headed by a disciple of Ananiev, ity in the 1980s within this theoretical approach B. F. Lomov, who, surrounded by Rubinstein’s (Asmolov, 1984; Stolin, 1983). However, be- disciples, represented an important new pole of cause the study of personality demanded that political and theoretical power in Soviet psy- the general principles of activity theory, rather chology. In addition to these two events, other than one concept, be modified, this promissory important changes in Soviet society and the line could not advance further, as activity the- Soviet political order also influenced psychol- ory’s conceptual matrix had not permitted op- ogy. portunities for advancing the study of personality. A New Moment in Soviet Psychology: The The topic of personality did not represent Fall of Activity as the Main Concept of merely a specific category. Within the concept Soviet Psychology of personality were general theoretical questions that appeared indirectly and partially in As was the case throughout history after long Soviet psychology because of ideological pres- periods of hegemony, the changes in Soviet sures. The topics of the subject—subjectivity, psychology and society since the 1970s consciousness, and society—began to be This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. wrought a fecund moment for questioning the treated openly by a restrictive circle of Soviet This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. limitations of activity theory in the broader cir- psychologists in the 1970s and the 1980s (Ab- cles of Soviet psychology. In 1977, the Soviet uljanova, 1973, 1980; Bruschlinsky, 1994; Union’s Fifth Congress of the Society of Psy- Chudnovsky, 1988). However, some years later chologists made the “problem of activity in in Russian psychology, those themes emerged Soviet psychology” its central theme. The con- with particular force (Bruschlinsky, 1994, 2002; gress sparked an unprecedented discussion re- Chudnovsky, 2006; Serguienko, 2009; Skot- garding the conceptual limitations of imputing nikova, 2009; Tolstyx, 2008; Zinchenko, 2002, the genesis of psychological phenomena to con- 2007, 2009). crete activity with objects that Leontiev had Another category that attained a distinctive advanced during the preceding two decades. status in those years and likewise entailed tran- 74 GONZÁLEZ REY

scending the boundaries of activity theory, as in founding Soviet psychology but who had defined by Leontiev, was communication. Ini- been banished as idealistic. The movement that tial discussions of this concept attempted to began in the last years of Soviet psychology, assimilate it into the classic scheme of the ob- and that continues today in Russian psychology, ject-oriented activity. Consequently, Lomov has had little impact on the traditional interpre- (1978) criticized A. A. Leontiev’s logic in his tations of Soviet authors by Western research- article “Activity and Communication” (1978). ers. He defended communication as a particular psy- As Cole and Gajdamaschko (2010) recently chological category irreducible to the terminol- observed, ogy of activity theory. Communication was un- Simultaneously there has been a rather broad recogni- derstood by Lomov as a dialogical process tion of the intercultural appropriation of Vygotsky’s rather than as an instrumental one. The criticism ideas. The resulting difficulties require a critical ap- of Lomov echoed in certain of Leontiev’s fol- proach to all claims of authenticity about adherences to presumed originals or fidelity in application of these lowers some years later (Davydov, 2002; Smir- ideas in contemporary scholarship on learning and nov, 1993; Zinchenko, 1995, 2002). development. (p. 253) As Lomov wrote: Such pitfalls concerning the intercultural ap- The general psychological representation of activity, propriation of Vygotsky’s ideas by Western au- the schemes of its analysis and its corresponding con- thors can be extended generally to these au- ceptual apparatus were organized in relation to the study of the individual activity, which naturally was thors’ interpretations of Soviet psychology. defined by the own problematic of the general psychol- Such appropriations have omitted the cultural- ogy....Forthis reason, occasionally were applied to historical contexts and the distinct moments of individual activity positions that were elaborated by development in the works of Soviet psycholo- Marxism for the analysis of the activity of society, and on the other side psychical processes are treated as gists. particular types of activity (Lomov, 1978). Some Final Comments Failing to perceive the need for a new theoretical paradigm, the proponents of activity the- Soviet psychology represented a broad and ory worked minimally to develop new concepts heterogeneous movement whose different and grounded new psychological phenomena trends shared certain general principles that al- exclusively through the original formulation of lowed it to be defined as a cultural-historical concrete practical activity, in a process in which psychology. However, deep contradictions it came to be almost a new metaphysical dogma. among those trends also existed but had not The concept of communication specifies dy- been studied in depth by Russian and Western namics and unfolding effects of emotional con- psychologists until very recently. The paths tacts between persons who cannot be described taken by Soviet psychology during its short life by the one-sided character “subject–object” were highly influenced by the dramatic politi- supported by the activity theoretical framework. cal, historical, and social changes that charac- Communication as a dialogical process simul- terized the Soviet era. taneously involves the generative and active The discovery of Vygotsky by American psy- positions of the involved persons, whose fanta- chologists at a moment in which this psychol- sies and imagination and the open expressions ogy was in crucial moments of change, as result This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. of their subjectivities are inseparable from the of the critics of Skinnerian behaviorism and of This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. communication. They are not concrete objects the advent of cognitive psychology, was deci- in that process, because the other is irreducible sive in the growing interests in Vygotsky, who to be an object; even when acting as a listener arose in a forefront group of American psychol- he subjectively produces what he listened to. ogists actively involved with the changes that There was a very naïve attempt to present the were taking place in American psychology. A other as a listener through the concept of object. new representation of Soviet psychology with The new theoretical avenues opened in the which the West works until today equated, 1970s figured decisively in the later openness of through different labels, Vygotsky, Leontiev, Russian psychology to a new agenda, which and Luria as part of the same theoretical para- included psychologists who were instrumental digm. This representation was cultivated by Le- ADVANCING FURTHER THE HISTORY OF SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY 75

ontiev and his group in the 1960s, who tried to Rubinchteina [Philosophical-psychological S. L. monopolize Vygotsky’s legacy. A small group Rubinstein’s conception]. Moscow, Russia: of American psychologists in this period began Nauka. a close relation with the group headed by Le- Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2012). Interview with Je- ontiev. rome Bruner. Retrieved from http://www Leontiev’s activity theory embodied the tra- .insidetheacademy.asu.edu/wp-content/uploads/ 2012/08/transcriptBruner.pdf dition that prevailed in Soviet psychology, iden- Asmolov, A. G. (1984). Lishnost kak predmet psyk- tifying the Marxist character of psychology in jologiskoi isledovanii [Personality as object psy- its objectivity as science. It made a great differ- chological research]. Moscow, Russia: State Uni- ence with the attempts made by Vygotsky and versity of Moscow. Rubinstein, in different ways, by posing the Bakhurst, D. (2007). Vygotsky’s demons. In H. Dan- consciousness and the person in the center of iels, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch, (Eds.), The Cambridge psychology. Such a point of convergence be- companion to Vygotsky (pp. 50–76). New York, tween these authors allowed some of their dis- NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ ciples to connect with each other when they CCOL0521831040.003 discussed personality and the active position of Bogdanshikov, C. A. (2008). Sovremennye tendencii the person (Abuljanova, 1973, 1980; Bozhov- v izushenii istorii Sovetskoi psykjologii [Contem- ich, 1968; Bruschlinsky, 1994). porary tendencies in the study of the history of Many ideas and topics developed in Soviet soviet psychology]. Voprocy Psykjologii, 4, 128– psychology that were overlooked for a long 137. Bostmanova, M. E., Guseva, E. P., & Ravich- time by Soviet and Western psychologists are Schervo, I. V. (1994). Psykjologisheskii Institut na starting to gain attention. There has been a Mojavoi [The Institute of Psychology in the Mo- profound transformation in the interpretation of javoi]. Moscow, Russia: ICHP EAB. Soviet psychology and its main authors, both in Bozhovich, L. I. (1968). La personalidad y su for- the West and in Russia, which is evident in a mación en la edad infantile [The personality and growing number of works that have focused on its formation in the childhood]. Habana, Cuba: consciousness, subjectivity, and the subject (Br- Pueblo y Educación. uschlinsky, 2002; Davydov, 2002; Kudriavtsev, Bruner, J. (1995). Reﬂecting on Russian conscious- 2006; Serguienko, 2009; Skotnikova, 2009; ness. In L. Martin, K. Nelson, & E. Tobach (Eds.), Yasnitsky, 2012; Zinchenko, 2002). Sociocultural psychology: Theory and practice of Different historical moments and trends that doing and knowing (pp. 67–86). New York, NY: characterized the development of Soviet and Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/ current Russian psychologies are complexly in- CBO9780511896828.006 Bruschlinsky, A. V. (1994). Problemy psykjologii terconnected to each other, and many of the subjekta [The problems of the psychology of the theoretical and epistemological aspects of So- subject]. Moscow, Russia: Russian Academy of viet psychology could be reinterpreted today Sciences. through the current paths of Russian psychol- Bruschlinsky, A. V. (1997). Preface. In A. V. Bruch- ogy. The attention to this movement developed linsky (Ed.), Psykjologicheskaya nauka v Rossi XX within this article opens up the possibility of stoletiya (pp. 3–8). Moscow, Russia: Institute Psy- advancing new interpretations of Soviet psychology PAN (Russian Academy of Sciences). chology that, in turn, may contribute to new Bruschlinsky, A. V. (2001). Camaya Shitaemaya interpretations of its legacy today. Oteshestbennaya Kniga no psykjologii: Triumphy, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Tragedii, Paradoksy [The most read book in the This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. national psychological literature: Triumphs, trage- References dies and paradoxes]. Pyskjologishesky Journal, 22, 5–13. Abuljanova, K. A. (1973). O subjekte psykjicheskoi Bruschlinsky, A. V. (2002). Psykjologiya subjekta i deyatelnosti [On the subject of psychical activity]. teoriya razvivayochee obrazovanie [Psychology of Moscow, Russia: Nauka. the subject and theory of developmental educa- Abuljanova, K. A. (1980). Deyatelnocti i Psikjologia tion]. In Razvivayushee Obrazovanie. Dialog c Lichnosti [Activity and theory of personality]. V. V. Davydovym (Vol. 1, pp. 128–135). Moscow, Moscow, Russia: Nauka. Russia: Academia. Abuljanova, K. A., & Bruschlinsky, A. V. (1989). Budilova, E. A. (1983). Sotcialno-psikjologicheskie Filosofko –psikjologichesakaya konceptciya S. L. problemy v Ruskoi nayke. [Sociopsychological 76 GONZÁLEZ REY

problems in the Russian sciences]. Moscow, Rus- Elkonin, D. B. (1995). Problems in the psychology of sia: Nauka. activity. Journal of Russian & East European Psy- Budilova, E. A., Lomov, B. F., & Shorojova, E. V. chology, 33, 32–34. (1975). Akademiya Nayk CCCP i razvitie psik- Galperin, P. Y. (1984). Memories of A. N. Leontiev. jologii [The Academy of Sciences, URSS and the Soviet Psychology, 23, 57–62. development of Psychology]. Voprocy Psikjologii, Galperin, P. Y. (1995). Problems in the psychology 2, 3–18. of activity. Journal of Russian & East European Chudnovsky, V. E. (1988). Problema subjektivnosti v Psychology, 33, 18–23. svete sobremennyx zadach psykjologii vospitaniya Gergen, K. (2006). Contruir la Realidad: El futuro de [The problem of subjectivity in the light of the la Psicoterapia [To build reality: The future of current tasks of the education]. Voprocy Psykjolo- Psychoterapy]. Barcelona. Paidós. gii, 4, 5–24. Glick, G. (2011). Dinamics in the “sabor” of Vy- Chudnovsky, V. E. (2006). Stanblenie lichnosti i gotsky [Dynamics in the “taste” of Vygotsky]. In P. Portes & S. Spencer (Eds.), Vygotsky in the XXI problema smisla zhizni [The formation of person- century society (pp. 15–31). New York, NY: Peter ality and the problem of the sense of life]. Mos- Lang. cow: Socio-psychological Institute of Moscow’s González Rey, F. (2009). Historical relevance of Publisher House. Vygotsky’s work: Its significance for a new ap- Chudnovsky, V. E. (2009). Vstupitelnoe slovo. L. I. proach to the problem of subjectivity in psychol- Bozhovich; chelobek, lichnost, ychiony [Introduc- ogy. Outlines: Critical Practical Studies, 11, 59– tory words. L. I. Bozhovich: Person, personality 73. and scientist]. Introduction to the L. I. Bozhovich’s González Rey, F. (2011). A re-examination of de- book Lishnost i ee formirovanie v detckom voz- fining moments in Vygotsky’s work and their raste. Moscow, Russia: Piter. implications for his continuing legacy. Mind, Cole, M. (1963). Velham report. Retrieved from http:// Culture, & Activity, 18, 257–275. doi:10.1080/ lchc.uscd.edu/Histarch/velham.htm 10749030903338517 Cole, M. (1998). Cultural psychology: A once and Koshmanova, T. S. (2007). Vygotskian scholars: Vi- future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uni- sion and implementations of cultural-historical versity Press. doi:10.1207/s15327884mca0504_4 theory. Journal of Russian & East European Psy- Cole, M., & Gajdamaschko, N. (2010). Vygotsky and chology, 45, 61–95. doi:10.2753/RPO1061- context: Toward a resolution of, theoretical dis- 0405450202 putes. In S. Kirchner & J. Martin (Eds.), The Kudriavtsev, V. T. (2006). Na Putiax k vershinnoi- sociocultural turn in psychology: The contextual glybinnoi psykjologii [On the paths to the peak of emergence of mind and self (pp. 253–280). New a profound psychology]. Voprocy Psykjologii, 5, York, NY: Columbia University Press. 113–125. Cole, M., Steiner, V. J., Scribner, S., & Souberman, Leontiev, A. A. (1992). Ecce homo: Methodological E. (Eds.). (1978). L. S. Vygotsky mind in society: problems of the activity theoretical approach. Mul- The development of higher psychological pro- tidisciplinary Newsletter for Activity Theory, 11/ cesses. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 12, 41–45. Cole, M., & Wertsch, J. (2011). Freedom and con- Leontiev, A. A. (2001). Deyatelnii Um (Deyatelnosti, straint in human action. Journal of Russian & East znak, lichnosti) [The active mind (Activity, sing, personality)]. Moscow, Russia: Smysl. European Psychology, 49, 3–29. doi:10.2753/ Leontiev, A. N. (1932). Studies in the cultural devel- RPO1061-0405490401 opment of the child: III. The development of vol- Daniels, H. (2012). Changing situations and motives. untary attention in the child. The Pedagogical In M. Hedegaard, A. Edwards, & M. Fleer (Eds.), Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 40, This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. Motives in children development: Cultural- 52–83. doi:10.1080/08856559.1932.10534207 This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is nothistorical to be disseminated broadly. (pp. 191–208). Cambridge, UK: Cam- Leontiev, A. N. (1975). Deyatelnosti, Coznanie, bridge University Press. Lichnosti [Activity, consciousness, personality]. Davydov, V. V. (1981). The category of activity and Moscow, Russia: Politizdat. mental reflection in the Theory of A. N. Leontiev. Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and Soviet Psychology, 19, 3–27. personality. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Davydov, V. V. (2002). Novii padjod k pobnimaniyu Hall. struktury I soderchaniya deyatelnosti [New ap- Leontiev, A. N. (1998). Ushenie o srede vpedologish- proach to comprehension of structure and content eskix rabotax L. S. Vygotskogo [Theory on envi- of activity]. In Razvivayochee obrazobanie: Dia- ronment in the pedological works of Vygotsky]. log with V. V. Davydov (pp. 24–34). Moscow, Voprocy Psykjologii, 1, 108–124. (Original man- Russia: AKP & PRO. uscript written by the author in 1937 and found in ADVANCING FURTHER THE HISTORY OF SOVIET PSYCHOLOGY 77

the archives of the Institute of Psychology of Mos- v psykjologii. Moscow, Russia: Institute of Psy- cow. It was ﬁrst published in this issue in com- chology of Russian Academy of Sciences. memoration of the Leontiev’s 95th anniversary). Smirnov, C. (1993). Ovshepsikjologisheskata teoria Lomov, B. F. (1978). Kategorii obtscheniya i deyatelnosti: Perspektivy i ogranicheniya: K 90 deyatelnosti v psykjologii [The categories of com- leitiu so dinya roshdeniya A. N. Leontiev [The munication and activity in psychology]. Voprocy general psychological activity theory: Perspectives Filosoﬁi, 8, 34–47. and constraints. On the 90th anniversary of the Luria, A. R. (1928). Psychology in Russia. The Ped- birth of A. N. Leontiev]. Voprocy psikjologii, 4, agogical Seminary and Journal of Genetic Psy- 94–101. chology, 35, 347–355. doi:10.1080/08856559 State University of Moscow. (1989). K 100 letiiyo so .1928.10533070 dnya roshdeniya C. L. Rubinshtein. Stranitzi isto- Matiushkin, A. M., & Kuzmina, N. V. (1983). Sovre- rii: O tom, kak byl yvolen S. L. Rubinshteinc [On mennoe sostaynie e sadachi detskoi, vozpactnoi e the 100 anniversary of S. L. Rubinshtein. Pages of pedagogicheskoi psikjologii [The current state and History. On how S. L. Rubinshtein was expulsed]. tasks of the child, ages and pedagogical psychol- Voprocy psykjologii, 4, 73–101. ogy]. Voprocy Psikjologii, 6, 5–15. Stolin, V. V. (1983). Camocoznanie Lishnosti [Self- Miasichev, V. N. (1960). Lichnost i nevrozy [Person- consciousness of personality]. Moscow, Russia: ality and neurosis]. Leningrad, Russia: Leningrad State University of Moscow. State University. Tolstyx, N. N. (2008). The formation of personality Miller, R. (2011). Vygotsky in Perspective. Cam- as the subject of development. Voprocy Psykjolo- bridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. gii, 5, 134–140. Nepomnichaya, N. I. (1977). Deyatelnost, coznanie, Vassilieva, J. (2010). Russian psychology at the turn lichnost i predmet psikjologii [Activity, conscious- of the 21st century and post-Soviet reforms in the ness, personality and the subject of psychology]. In humanities disciplines. History of Psychology, 13, Problema deyatelnosti v soviestkoi psikjologii. 138–159. doi:10.1037/a0019270 Tezicy e dakladov V Vzecayusnamu Sciezdu Ob- Vygotsky, L. S. (1929). The problem of the cultural chestva psikjologov (First book, pp. 68–79). Mos- development of the child. The Pedagogical Semi- cow, Russia: Fifth Soviet Union’s Congress of the nary and Journal of Genetic Psychology, 36, 415– Society of Psychologists. 434. doi:10.1080/08856559.1929.10532201 Orlov, A. B. (2003). A. N. Leontiev and L. S. Vy- Vygotsky, L. S. (1995). Historia del desarrollo de las gotsky: Ocherk razvitiya sjizisa [A. N. Leontiev funciones psíquicas superiores. En Obras Escogi- and L. S. Vygotsky: Essay about the development das. T.3 Problemas del desarrollo de la psique of the excision]. Voprocy Psykjologii, 2, 70–85. [History of the development of the higher psycho- Radzijovsky, L. A. (1988). Diskusionniye problem logical functions]. Madrid, Spain: VISOR. Marksistkoi theorii v Sovietskoi psikjologicheskoi Yarochevsky, M. G. (2007). L. S. Vygotsky: V nauke [Controversial problems of Marxist theory poiskax novoi psykjologii [L. S. Vygotsky: In the in Soviet psychological science]. Voprosy Psyk- search for a new psychology]. Moscow, Russia: jologii, 6, 124–131. L. K. I. Rubinstein, S. L. (1964). El desarrollo de la psi- Yasnitsky, A. (2009). Vygotsky circle during the de- cología. Principios y métodos [The development cade of 1931–1941: Toward an integrative science of psychology: Principles and methods]. Habana, of mind, brain and education (Unpublished doc- Cuba: Editora del Consejo Nacional de Universi- toral dissertation). University of Toronto, Toronto, dades. Canada. Serguienko, E. A. (2009). Kontinualno-geneticheskii Yasnitsky, A. (2010). “Archival revolution” in Vy- printsip stanovleniya subekta [Continuous genetic gotskian studies? Uncovering Vygotsky’s ar- This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. principle of the subject formation]. In A. L. chives. Journal of Russian & Eastern European This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is notZhuravleva, to be disseminated broadly. B. B. Znakova, Z. I. Pyabinkoi, & Psychology, 48, 3–13. doi:10.2753/RPO1061- E. A. Serguienko (Eds.), Subektnii podjod v psyk- 0405480100 jologi. Moscow, Russia: Institute of Psychology of Yasnitsky, A. (2012). Revisionist revolution in Vy- Russian Academy of Sciences. gotskian science: Toward cultural-historical Ge- Sheehan, H. (1985). Marxism and the philosophy of stalt psychology. Journal of Russian & East Eu- science: A critical history. New York, NY: Hu- ropean Psychology, 50, 3–15. doi:10.2753/ manities Press International. RPO1061-0405500400 Skotnikova, I. G. (2009). Kategoriya subjekt i urovni Zaporozhets, A. V. (1995). Problems in the psychol- subektivnosti [The category of subject and levels ogy of activity. Journal of Russian & European of subjectivity]. In A. L. Zhuravleva, B. B. Zna- Psychology, 33, 12–17. doi:10.2753/RPO1061- kova, & E. A. Serguienko (Eds.), Subektnii podjod 0405330412 78 GONZÁLEZ REY

Zavershneva, E. Y. (2009). Isledovanie rukopisi L. S. (pp. 37–55). New York, NY: Cambridge Univer- Vygotskogo “Istoricheskii smisl Psykjologuishes- sity Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139174299.003 koro Krisisa” [Research of the manuscript of L. S. Zinchenko, V. P. (1999). Slovo o S. L. Rubinshtein Vygotsky “The historical sense of the psycholog- [A word on S. L. Rubinstein]. Voprocy Psykjolo- ical crisis”]. Voprocy Psykjologii, 6, 119–137. gii, 5, 107–109. Zavershneva, E. Y., & Osipov, M. E. (2010). Os- Zinchenko, V. P. (2002). Problematika mischleniya v novnie popravki k teksty “Istoricheskyy smisl razvivayochevo obycheniya [The problem of psykjologuisheskogo krisisa,” opublikovannomu v thinking in developmental education]. In F. de Tal 1982 g. v Sobranii Soshinenii L. S. Vygotskogo (Ed.), Razvivayushee obrazovanie. Dialog c V. V. [Main corrections of text “The historical sense of Davydovym (pp. 46–102). Moscow, Russia: Aca- the psychological crisis]. Voprocy Psykjologii, 1, demia. 92–102. Zinchenko, V. P. (2007). Thought and word: The Zavialov, N. (2009). Pazvitie poniatiya “vnutrennaya approaches of L. S. Vygotsky and G. Shpet. In H. forma slova” G. G. Shpeta v Kognitivhix naukax Daniels, M. Cole, & J. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cam- [Development of G. G. Shpet’s notion “inner form bridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 212–245). New of the word” in cognitive sciences]. Voprocy Psyk- York, NY: Cambridge University Press. jologii, 3, 97–102. Zinchenko, V. P. (2009). Consciousness as the sub- Zinchenko, V. P. (1993). Kulturno-Istorisheskaya ject matter and task of psychology. Journal of Psykjologia: Onyt ampliﬁkatsii. Voprocy Psykjolo- Russian and East European Psychology, 47, 44– gii, 4, 5–19. 75. Zinchenko, V. P. (1995). Cultural-historical psychology and the psychological theory of activity: Ret- Received January 12, 2012 rospect and prospect. In J. Wertsch, P. del Rio, & Revision received September 27, 2013 A. Alvarez (Eds.), Sociocultural studies of mind Accepted October 28, 2013 Ⅲ This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.