Культурно-историческая психология Cultural-Historical 2016. Т. 12. № 3. С. 27—46 2016. Vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 27—46 doi: 10.17759/chp.2016120303 doi: 10.17759/chp.2016120303 ISSN: 1816-5435 (печатный) ISSN: 1816-5435 (print) ISSN: 2224-8935 (online) ISSN: 2224-8935 (online) © 2016 ФГБОУ ВО МГППУ © 2016 Moscow State University of Psychology & Education

Critical Reflection on the Reception of Vygotsky’s Theory in the International Academic Communities1 M. Dafermos*, University of Crete, Greece, [email protected]

This paper is an attempt to analyze various types of the reception of Vygotsky’s theory in the interna- tional academic communities. The paper develops a critical analysis of three widespread theoretical frame- works of interpretation of Vygotsky’s theory: cognitivism, culturalism, cultural historical . It is argues that fragmented readings of particular ideas of Vygotsky, without enough understanding of the theoretical programme in which these ideas have been included dominates in North-Atlantic research. The paper proposes the reconstruction of the theoretical programme of cultural historical psychology in the social and scientific context of its formation.

Keywords: Vygotsky, cultural-historical theory, cognitivism, cultural relativism, CHAT, archival revo- lution.

Introduction Mind in society is not written by Vygotsky. Mind in so- ciety is “a compilation and juxtaposition of fragments founded an original theory commonly taken from different Vygotsky works written during dif- known as cultural historical psychology at the end of ferent periods of his scientific career” [77, p. 4]. the 1920s and 30s in the USSR. At that time Vygotsky’s A bibliography of Vygotsky’s works, which was pre- works did not have a high impact on the international pared by Lifanova [38], includes 275 titles. But the ma- scene of psychology and other disciplines. jority of researchers used only two of Vygotsky’s books: Vygotsky’s ‘second life’ in the ‘western world’ began Thought and language, and Mind in society. from the early 1960s, when Vygotsky’s book Miclenie I Large literature on Vygotsky’s legacy and many dif- rech (Thinking and speech) was published under the title ferent applications of his ideas in different disciplines Thought and language (1962) with ’s in- have emerged. Multiple interpretations about the theo- troduction. It is worth noting that the Russian edition retical cultural-historical approach background and pos- of Vygotsky’s book Miclenie I rech in 1956 modified the sible applications of Vygotsky’s theory have developed. Russian edition of 1934 without further explanation. Many educators and psychologists extol the benefits of The 1962 MIT Press translation of Vygotsky’s work Vygotsky’s theory, but actually they know little about Miclenie I rech became the source of translations in other his works. Many researchers accept only a few fragment- countries such as Argentina (1964), Italy (1966), Brazil ed ideas, taken out of the specific context within which (1987), etc. The Russian version of 1956 was translated these ideas have developed. into various languages such as Japanese (1962), German According to Daniels, Cole and Wertsch [13], (1964), Polish (1971), etc. For many years a limited and studying Vygotsky in context means that we should problematic version of Vygotsky’s book Miclenie I rech define two different historical eras and multiple social has circulated in different countries [37]. milieus — the context of the in the first After publication of the book Mind in society (1978) half of the twentieth century and different parts of the under Vygotsky’s name the ‘Vygotsky boom’ started. world of the twenty-first century. In recent years in American philosopher Stephen Toulmin referred to the English-speaking regions of the Western world a Vygotsky as the ‘Mozart of Psychology’ [58]. The book transformation of Vygotsky into “a ‘chewing gum’ for

For citation: Dafermos M. Critical Reflection on the Reception of Vygotsky’s Theory in the International Academic Communities. Кul’turno- istoricheskaya psikhologiya = Cultural-historical psychology, 2016. Vol. 12, no. 3, pp. 27—46. (In Russ., abstr. in Engl.). doi: 10.17759/chp.2016120303 * Manolis Dafermos, Ph.D. in Philosophy, Associate Professor, University of Crete, Greece. E-mail: [email protected]

1 The paper firstly published in М. Dafermos. Critical reflection on the reception of Vygotsky’s theory in the international academic communities. In B. Selau & R. Fonseca de Castro (eds.), Cultural-Historical Theory: Educational Research in Different Contexts. Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS, 2015, pp. 19—38.

27 Dafermos M. Critical Reflection on the Reception of Vygotsky’s Theory... Дафермос М. Критический анализ принятия теории Л.С. Выготского... everybody, every day, and every occasion” takes place How to define Vygotsky’s theory? [10, p. 95]. The term ‘westernization’ of Vygotsky does not depict the complex processes of the reception How to define Vygotsky’s ideas? Various designa- and implementation of Vygotsky’s theory in differ- tions of his own theory could be found in different Vy- ent parts of the globe (North America, Latin Ameri- gotsky works: ‘instrumental psychology’, ‘conception of ca, China, Japan, different countries of Europe such the historical development of the higher psychological as Germany, England, Holland, Denmark, Finland, functions’ [kontseptsiia istoricheskogo razvitiia vys- etc.). Vygotsky’s masterpieces have been translated shikh psikhologicheskikh funktsii], ‘theory of the high- into various languages. There are several attempts at er psychological functions’ [teoriia vysshikh psikho- analysis of Vygotsky’s theory in different sociocultur- logicheskikh funktsii], ‘the cultural —historical theory al settings such as the USA [43], China [27], Brazil of the development of higher psychic functions’, etc. [31, [36], Latin America [17], etc. However, the analysis p. 21; 66, p. 27]. and multiple applications of Vygotsky’s theory across Various designations have been used by the next gen- countries and the geopolitical regions remains open- eration of Soviet psychologists: ‘cultural-historical the- ended question. ory of the psyche’ [kulturno-istoricheskoi teoriei psikh- Debates across different ‘camps’ or schools over Vy- iki] [34, p. 7], ‘theory of the development of the higher gotsky’s legacy have been carried out in various interna- psychical functions’ [teoriia razvitiia vysshikh psikh- tional Vygotskian academic communities. In the context icheskikh funktsii] [35, p.3], ‘cultural-historical theory of a dialogue of different Vygotskian ‘camps’ many ques- of the higher psychical functions’ [kulturno-istoriches- tions about dialectics, relativism, developmentalism, kaja theoria vysshikh psikhicheskikh funktsii] [5]. Marxism, etc. have been raised [60; 2; 41; 19; 67]. What According to Keiler [31], the label ‘cultural-historical should be the criteria of choice between different read- theory’ [kulturnogo-istoricheskaia teoriia] is no authen- ings and versions of Vygotskian theory? Are the posi- tic designation for the conceptions elaborated by L.S. tions of these versions or ‘camps’ compatible or incom- Vygotsky, but has “been introduced in the mid-1930s by patible? adversaries of Vygotsky… with the defamatory purpose, Firstly, it is important to note a paradox of the inter- to impute to the ‘Vygotsky-Luria-group’” [31, p.22]. pretation of Vygotsky’s theory. Radically opposite read- D. Elkonin defines Vygotsky’s theory as ‘non classi- ings of Vygotsky’s texts and different interpretations of cal psychology’ which is presented as “the science of the Vygotsky’s legacy have emerged. Papadopoulos [46] at- way the subjective world of a single person emerges from tempted to analyze the reception of Vygotsky’s theory in the objective world of art, the world of production tools, academic psychology. He discussed two typical cases of the world of the entire industry” [18, p. 478]. Vygotsky’s reception, one cognitive and other cultural. Vygotsky’s theory has been defined also as ‘height He concluded that Vygotsky’s ideas have been incorpo- psychology’ (or ‘peak psychology’) [76, p. 351; 49, rated in paradigmatically different theories. p.v] which emphasized the potential for development However, it would be incorrect to limit Vygotsky’s through social collaboration. ideas only to psychology, because his ideas provide a Contemporary researchers use the notions ‘sociocul- broad framework which has been expanded in various tural theory’. Wertsch states that “I use the term socio- disciplines such as pedagogy, linguistics, anthropology, cultural because I want to understand how mental ac- etc. [36]. Daniels [11, p. xvi] argues that “Vygotsky’s tion cultural-historical approach is situated in cultural, theory can provide grounds for different, if not oppos- historical, and institutional settings. I have chosen this ing, epistemologies and pedagogies”. The idea of the ex- term rather than others (such as cultural or sociohistori- istence of many ‘Vygotskian’ pedagogies, psychologies, cal) in order to recognize the important contributions of and epistemologies reinforces the paradox of the recep- several disciplines and schools of thought to the study of tion of Vygotsky’s theory in international academic mediated action. On the one hand, I wish to recognize communities. the contributions made by Vygotsky and his colleagues The systematic investigation of the reception and (although they typically used the term ‘sociohistorical’ implementation of Vygotsky’s legacy in different parts rather than sociocultural). On the other, I wish to rec- of the globe is beyond the scope of this chapter. In the ognize the contributions made by many contemporary present work I will focus mainly on critical reflections scholars of culture (although most of the scholars I have on several widespread tendencies in the reception and in mind do not use the term historical in descriptions of interpretation of Vygotsky’s theory in international aca- what they do). In a sense, a term such as sociohistori- demic communities. Three main issues will be discussed. cal-cultural would be more accurate, but it is obviously First, I will discuss the existence of different definitions much too cumbersome” [74, p. 15—16]. of Vygotsky’s theory. Vygotsky has never used the term ‘sociocultural’ for Second, I will analyze three widespread theoretical codification (or labeling) of his own theory. The term frameworks of interpretation of Vygotsky’s theory: cog- ‘sociocultural’ does not refer to the theory founded by nitivism, culturalism, cultural historical activity theory. Vygotsky and his colleagues, but the theoretical frame- Third, I will discuss challenges connected with the ‘ar- work of its reception and incorporation in North Ameri- chival revolution’ in Vygotskian studies and highlight can settings. Vygotsky’s theory was only one of many the need for a reconsideration and deeper investigation thinkers who have inspired the founders of sociocultural of Vygotsky’s theory. theory.

28 КУЛЬтурно-историческая психология 2016. т. 12. № 3 Cultural-Historical psychology. 2016. Vol. 12, no. 3

There are a lot of difficult questions about a link Jean Piaget and Vygotsky were the two psychologists between ‘sociocultural theory’ and ‘cultural-historical who helped him realize the importance of studying the psychology’ such as the question of the relationships development of the human mind [57]. between the historical perspective of cultural histori- In the context of North Atlantic psychology the re- cal psychology and the concept of cultural differences ception of Vygotsky’s theory took place under the influ- of ‘sociocultural theory’. Wertsch [74, p.16] criticizes ence of the ‘cognitive revolution’ which “was intended Vygotsky for “reducing cultural differences to historical to bring ‘mind’ back into the human sciences after a differences”. It is only one example of the serious differ- long cold winter of objectivism” [4, p.1]. The behaviorist ences between Vygotsky’s theory and its reception and model S-R could not moreover satisfy many research- transformation by North Atlantic scholars. Robbins [50] ers. The reintroduction of thinking in psychology after argues that sociocultural theory cannot deal with histo- a long period of behaviorist domination opened up new ry as change and sometimes “turns into a model of post- perspectives for the development of psychology and modern bricolage”. For Vygotsky ‘history’ and ‘histori- learning theory. J.Bruner, one of the protagonists of the cal’ were very important as it refers to the onto-genesis cognitive revolution considered the introduction of a and phylogenesis of the human mind. Neglect of ‘histori- middle link (Sign-mediated thought) between S-R as a cal’ in Vygotsky’s theory is an indicator of a misunder- way to overcome the behaviorist pattern [46]. standing of its essence. Vygotsky provides “the foundations for the cogni- ‘Cultural’ and ‘historical’ are the two interconnect- tive developmental theory on which Bruner builds his ing aspects of his theory which constitute its content. account of the role of education in human development” The definition (or labeling) of Vygotsky’s ideas is not [45, p. 106]. Bruner argues that “the cognitive revolution a neutral point of view, but it depicts the understand- simply absorbed the concept of learning into the broader ing of the essence of his theory. Yasnitsky [78] argues concept of “the acquisition of knowledge” [4, p. 105] that the terminological diversity and fluidity reflect the Cognitivism emerged in the 1950s in North America constant search for adequate descriptors for the research as a reaction to the domination of behaviorism. Cogni- programme introduced by Vygotsky and his colleagues tivism is based on the assumption that cognition con- [78]. In my opinion, this terminological diversity and stitutes a “manipulation of symbols after the fashion of fluidity express also the existence of different ways of re- digital computers. In other words, cognition is mental ceiving and implementing Vygotsky’s theory in various representation: the mind is thought to operate by ma- social and scientific contexts. nipulating symbols that represent features of the world Edward Said [53] argued that when a theory is mov- or represent the world as being a certain way” [65, p. 8]. ing in a new environment, it will be transformed as a Cognition is considered by representatives of cognitiv- result of changes in place and time. Traveling around ism as totally separated from the consciousness of partic- the globe Vygotsky’s theory has been essentially trans- ular subjects involved in social interaction. “Cognitivist, formed under the influence of multiple contexts in its on the other hand, postulates processes that are mental reception and implementation. The main problem is that but that cannot be brought to consciousness at all. frequently critical reflection on the reception of Vy- Thus we are not simply unaware of the rules that gov- gotsky’s theory researchers and practitioners are not ern the generation of mental images or of the rules that aware of the difference between Vygotsky’s theory and govern visual processing; we could not be aware of these its own frames and filters in its reception. rules” [65, p. 49]. In contrast to cognitivism, for Vy- gotsky [71] consciousness is one of the most important and difficult problems of psychology. Vygotsky devel- The mirrors of cognitivism oped various strategies for its investigation in different periods of the development of his research program [66], The first translations of Vygotsky’s works in an Eng- but for all the last years of his short life he attempted lish language context appeared at the end of the 1920’s to analyze the problem of consciousness which has been years [69]. The reappearance of Vygotsky’s ideas in ignored by cognitivist thinkers. western academia occurred in the early 1960’s in the new The growing interest in Vygotsky’s theory took social and scientific context. place under the influence of the linguistic revolution in As I have already mentioned, J.Bruner played a cru- the late 1960s and early 1970s. Already in 1950 the de- cial role in introducing Vygotsky’s theory to Western bate between Chomsky and behaviorists was at its peak Academia. Bruner was involved in educational reform [44]. Chomsky criticized mechanistic, reductionist in- taking place in the USA under the influence and pres- terpretations of language which have been proposed by sure of the ‘Sputnik shock’ of 1957. As the result of the behaviorists who consider psychic phenomena as simple ‘Sputnik shock’ “...America was made to realize that it reactions to external stimuli. Vygotsky’s theory of a mu- was lagging behind the Soviet Union in preparing sci- tual relationship between thought and speech radically entists, and also citizens who were well educated in such differs both from Chomsky’s innatist explanation of lan- areas as science and math, from whom future intellectual guage competence and the behavioral theory of verbal leaders would emerge” [57, p. 4—5]. Bruner was one of behavior. the first American thinkers who was aware of the in- Van der Veer and Valsiner note that the creation of adequacy of the principles of the so-called experience- the figure of Vygotsky in the USA was connected with based education as well as behaviorist theory learning. the decline of interest in Piaget’s ideas in the 1970s.

29 Dafermos M. Critical Reflection on the Reception of Vygotsky’s Theory... Дафермос М. Критический анализ принятия теории Л.С. Выготского...

“Vygotsky’s message — of the role of the ‘social other’ in In accordance with a limited, formal interpretation of child development (even if not original to him, nor very cultural historical psychology ZPD is presented only as unusual among other sociogenetic thinkers) — fitted into a psychological unity and not as a socio-historical unity American education contexts where Piaget ascribed in- of study [44]. Many critical pedagogies in Brazil argue dividual learning freedom of pupils was threatening the that the concept of zone of proximal development as authority and control functions of the teachers” [62, p. 4]. presented in the Portuguese translation of the North At- One of the serious barriers for understanding Vygotsky’s lantic translation offers “a linear and partial understand- theory in the USA is connected with the tendency to ing of human development” [37, p.493]. In the Brazilian create a distance from its ideological backgrounds and context Vygotsky’s theory is considered through the the sociocultural context in which it was formed. “What perspective of complementing and expanding the theo- is more important, however, is a more general tendency retical background of critical pedagogy which is pre- not only to avoid the connection of Vygotsky’s theory to sented as pedagogy of and for social transformation [36]. Marxism, but to avoid any contextual considerations of It can be seen that Vygotsky’s theory has been radi- Vygotsky’s work at all. One can see a great irony here: cally transformed in different cultural historical con- Cultural—historical theory tends to be interpreted and texts. Totally different interpretations of the concepts of taught in a cultural and historical vacuum” [1, p. 437]. cultural historical psychology such as the concept ‘zone Decontextualization of Vygotsky’s theory constitutes a proximal development’ (mainstream and critical) can be kind of incorporation into a radically different theoreti- found. The problem is that usually researchers and prac- cal and methodological ‘paradigm’. titioners are not aware of their implicit assumptions of “Present-day psychologists’ interest in Vygotsky’s adopting Vygotsky’s theory and how these assumptions thinking is indeed paradoxical. On the one hand, his are connected with their scientific, educational, politi- writings seem increasingly popular among developmen- cal, social practices. tal psychologists in Europe and North America. On the other hand, however, careful analyses and thorough un- derstanding of the background of Vygotsky’s ideas are The mirrors of Culturalism rare…Vygotsky seems to be increasingly well-known in international psychology, while remaining little critical Cultural psychology is one of the typical patterns reflection on the reception of Vygotsky’s theory under- (modes) for the reception of Vygotsky’s theory. Michael stood. The roots of his thinking in international philo- Cole, one of the major figures of cultural psychology, sophical and psychological discourse remain largely hid- carried out post-doctoral research working under the den. His ideas have rarely been developed further, along guidance of . Undoubtedly, Cole essen- either theoretical or empirical lines” [61, p. 117]. tially promoted the dialogue between Soviet and Ameri- Vygotsky’s theory has become popular in contem- can psychologists. porary pedagogical literature. Vygotsky’s ideas have Using the concept of cultural artifact (including ma- had a great impact on educational theory and practice terial tools and language), Cole attempted to elaborate in different countries and geopolitical regions. It is re- a mediational theory of mind. “Artifacts are the funda- ported that the interest in Vygotsky’s theory in the USA mental constituents of culture. The growth of the human emerged in the particular social context: “The reception mind, in ontogeny and in human history, must properly of Vygotsky was also facilitated by social factors— such be understood as a coevolution of human activities and as American educators’ growing interest in a pedagogical artifacts” [6, p. xiv]. Contrary to Vygotsky, who made reform that would de-emphasize the traditional, individ- a clear distinction between material tools, and signs as ualist view of learning. Pedagogy and child psychology psychological tools, introducing the concept ‘cultural were moving away from a reliance on behaviorist mod- artifact’, Cole [6] eliminated the qualitative difference els. They needed a new paradigm, and in the context of between them. increasing liberalism (partly provoked by the Vietnam Cole’s cultural psychology is based more on Wartof- war) the Vygotskian approach seemed particularly ap- sky’s conception of artifacts [12] than on Vygotskian pealing” [28, p. 644]. analysis of material and psychological tools. There was It is worth mentioning an example of the reception no conception of artefact in Vygotsky’s theory. Vygotsky of cultural-historical psychology in the field of pedagogy rejected the “subsumption of tools and signs under the and child psychology in the North American context. concept of ‘artifact’” [52, p. 100]. “Phenomena that have Famous in western literature is the concept of ‘zone of their own psychological aspect, but in essence do not proximal development’, but this is not the central and belong wholly to, psychology, such as technology, are original Vygotsky idea and in isolation from other con- completely illegitimately psychologized. The basis for cepts of cultural-historical psychology it could easily be this identification is ignoring the essence of both forms, misunderstood [8]. Bruner used the Vygotskian concept of activity and the differences in their historical role and of ZPD for the foundation of his theory of ‘scaffolding’. nature. Tools as devices of work, devices for mastering Although Vygotsky has never used the term ‘scaffold- the processes of nature, and language as a device for so- ing’, the terms ZPD and ‘scaffolding’ become synonyms cial contact and communication, dissolve in the general in literature [42]. The contemporary reception of Vy- concept of artefacts or artificial devices” [72, p. 61]. gotsky is “highly selective, distorted and perhaps over- In Cole’s Laboratory of Comparative Human Cog- simplified in its apparent coherence” [16, p. 184]. nition at the University of California cross cultural re-

30 КУЛЬтурно-историческая психология 2016. т. 12. № 3 Cultural-Historical psychology. 2016. Vol. 12, no. 3 search was carried out. Michael Cole incorporated cul- The mirrors of Cultural-historical activity theory tural historical theory into his cross-cultural research. His cross-cultural research is based on the one hand on Cultural-historical activity theory (CH/AT) has be- the tradition of American Anthropology and, on the oth- come one of the most popular theoretical frameworks of er, on cultural historical psychology and activity theory. the incorporation of Vygotsky’s legacy in Anglo-Saxon Cultural relativism is one of the key concepts of cul- literature over the past three decades. According to Ya- tural Anthropology. From the standpoint of cultural rel- magata-Lynch [75], the introduction of Cultural Histori- ativism cultures are considered as discrete units both in cal Activity Theory in North America is connected to the time and space. According to Rogoff [51], understanding attempt by researchers and practitioners to study com- of human development from a sociocultural perspective plex learning environments. The increasing interest in includes the following patterns: Vygotsky’s ideas is closely linked to the disappointment “ — Moving beyond ethnocentrism to consider differ- with traditional learning theories such as behaviorism and ent perspectives cogntitivism. Cultural-historical activity theory is based — Considering diverse goals of development on the compilation of various ideas of Russian schools of — Recognizing the value of the knowledge of both psychology and their adaptation within the North Ameri- insiders and outsiders of specific cultural communities can context. “When activity theory was adopted in North — Systematically and open-mindedly revising our in- America most scholars, including myself, used it exclu- evitably local understandings so that they become more sively as a descriptive tool in qualitative studies and not encompassing” [51, p. 12]. as a method for changing practice” [75, p. 31]. Cultural relativism is constructed as a rejection of Different versions of Cultural-historical activity the- ethnocentrism and a celebration of cultural differences. ory can be found. Engeström’s theory of activity systems Cultural relativism is based on the fragmentation of cul- tends to be among the most powerful versions of CHAT ture and the exoticization of cultural differences. Cul- [21; 22; 23]. Sawchuk, Duarte and Elhammoumi attempt tural relativism emerged in cultural anthropology and to develop a critically-oriented version of Cultural his- expanded in other disciplines (linguistics, cultural stud- torical activity theory on the basis of Marxist dialectics ies, psychology, etc.). [54]. Stetsenko and Arievitch consider Cultural-histor- Matusov [41, p. 85] argues that there are not only ical activity theory as a project able to explain human similarities, but also some important differences be- subjectivity and promote social transformation [55]. tween Vygotsky’s cultural-historical and sociocultural However, there are some common orientations be- projects. In contrast to the sociocultural approach which tween different versions of Cultural historical activity emphasizes cultural diversity, the cultural-historical theory. Contrary to approaches emphasizing differences school ignores important differences between cultures. between cultural historical psychology and activity the- In my opinion, the problem is not that Vygotsky ignored ory, “the basic impulse underlying a CH/AT approach is the differences between different cultures. The difficulty to reject this either/or dichotomy” [7, p. 485]. Focusing consists rather in that the concept of culture in cultural on similarities and underestimating the differences be- historical psychology is totally different than in a socio- tween cultural-historical psychology and activity theo- cultural approach. “Therefore, any time Vygotsky uses ry, the representatives of CH/AT attempt to develop a the word culture or cultural, we have to keep in mind that framework for their combination. he, generally, means its generic, universal connotation, Engeström’s approach of three generations of Cul- not its specifics and particulars” [1, p. 441)]. Even in tural-historical activity theory is based on the rejection Luria’s research in Uzbekistan, Luria and Vygotsky did of the dichotomy between cultural-historical psychol- not focus on specific characteristics of Uzbek culture, ogy and activity theory and historical legitimization of but they investigated general routes of cognitive devel- Cultural-historical activity theory. The first generation opment. Vygotsky’s concept of culture differs radically refers to Vygotsky’s theory of mediated action. The sec- from cultural diffusionism and cultural relativism. ond generation is connected with A.N. Leontiev’s theory Contemporary cultural relativism is connected with of emphasizing the collective nature of human activity. multiculturalism based on the particularism of differ- Engeström’s activity systems model is considered by him ent cultures and the celebration of cultural differences. as the main achievement of the third generation of Cul- The developmental perspective of cultural historical tural historical activity theory [21]. psychology differs totally from post-modern relativiza- The scheme of three generations of Cultural-his- tion and fragmentation of culture. The modernization torical activity theory offers a linear, continuous, pres- of Vygotsky’s theory as well as post-modern reading by ents, decontextualized account and obscures the gaps, relativistic oriented cultural psychology leads to a theo- tensions, and inconsistencies in the history of cultural- retical confusion and misunderstanding. Moreover, the historical psychology and activity theory. From the per- relativistic cultural psychology rejects totally the de- spective of the idea of three generations of Cultural-his- velopmental, historical orientation of cultural histori- torical activity theory, it is hard to explain the tension cal psychology as a theory of the development of higher between Vygotsky and Leontiev in the early 1930s. mental functions [68]. The separation of the cultural di- At this point the idea of three generations of Cultur- mensions of psychological processes from the historical, al-historical activity theory coincides with the ‘canoni- developmental perspective of their consideration leads to cal approach’ in Soviet psychology, considering activity distortion and confusion. theory as a continuation of cultural historical psychol-

31 Dafermos M. Critical Reflection on the Reception of Vygotsky’s Theory... Дафермос М. Критический анализ принятия теории Л.С. Выготского... ogy [48, 14]. Proponents of the ‘canonical approach’ ar- ogy in Latin America: first, through Marxist circles that gue that there is the ‘school of Vygotsky-Leontiev-Lu- were close to the Communist Parties in the region; sec- ria’. The ‘canonical approach’ of the development of the ond, through a group of Cuban psychologists who did ‘school of Vygotsky-Leontiev-Luria’ has been criticized doctoral studies in Moscow after the Cuban Revolu- for ignoring the serious differences between Vygotsky’s tion, with a few exceptions such as González Rey [17] research programme and the Kharkov group’s research and third, through North American psychology, because programme [78]. The proponents of the second approach many scholars and practitioners in Latin America have focus on discontinuities and gaps that exist between Vy- been oriented to its theoretical framework. gotsky’s and Leontiev’s research programs. Toomela [59] Focusing on the third avenue of the introduction of argues that activity theory is a dead end for cultural his- CHAT, it is useful to remember Martin-Baro’s warning torical psychology. Martins [40] focuses not only on the [39, p. 20] about the uncritical swallowing of theories theoretical breakout that occurred between Vygotsky and methods from North America psychology: “Latin and Leontiev, but also on differences between them American psychology looked to its already scientifical- connected with conjectural and ideological positioning, ly and socially respectable ‘Big Brother’, and, borrow- arising from political changes in the Soviet Union. ing his methodological and practical conceptual tools, In the context of Cultural Historical Activity Theory hoped to gain from the power structure in each country, (CH/AT) both Rubinstein’s version of activity theory a social status equivalent to that attained by the North and also Leontiev’s and Rubinstein’s debates on the con- Americans”. cept ‘activity’ disappeared. The image of the develop- CH/AT as well as other types of reception of cul- ment of the concept of activity would be simplified, if we tural historical psychology in a North American context did not take into account the differences in each of these spread rapidly to other countries and continents. How- scientific schools and debate between them (for example, ever, as Vygotsky wrote: “He that toucheth pitch shall the differences of Galperin’s and Leontiev’s positions). be defiled” [70, p. 261]. Anyone who borrows ideas and Serious differences between the ‘third’ and previous theoretical systems from North Atlantic psychology and generation of CHAT can be found. Hakkarainen [26, p. 4] pedagogy, “gets his share of the ‘pitch’ of these systems, argues that western CHAT accepts “a multidisciplinary i.e., the philosophical spirit of the authors” [70, p. 261]. approach while the Russian activity approach is more or less psychological”. A multidisciplinary approach to activ- ity theory has developed at the Center for Activity The- From the archival revolution ory and Developmental Work Research (University of to the reconsideration of understanding Finland, Helsinki) led by Yrjö Engeström. The ‘first’ and Vygotsky’s legacy in academic communities ‘second’ generation of activity theory worked in the con- text of psychology as a discipline, while the ‘third’ genera- One of the most serious obstacles to understanding tion developed a multidisciplinary research program. Vygotsky’s theory is connected with limited access to The question of relationships between Vygotsky’s Vygotsky’s works. Vygotsky’s Collected Works appeared cultural historical psychology and Leontiev’s activ- in the Soviet Union in the 1980s and in the 1990’s their ity theory provokes discussions and controversy in in- translation was published in English. However, the six- ternational academic communities. Analyzing debates volume collection of Vygotsky’s works is incomplete and on cultural historical activity theory in China, Hong, does not include many of Vygotsky’s works such as Psy- Yang & Chen [27] state that “still today there seems to chology of Art (1925), Educational Psychology (1926), be a gap how Leont’ev’s activity theory is actually con- Imagination and creativity in childhood (1930), Essays in nected to Vygotsky’s cultural-historical development the History of Behavior. Ape. Primitive. Child (1930; writ- theory. People may keep asking: ‘Is Vygotsky’s theory ten by Vygotsky and Luria), Children’s Mental Develop- the same thing as what we have talked about to be the ment in the Process of Education (1935) and etc. More activity theory?’ Or a similar question: ‘Is the activity than 90 Vygotsky reviews of theatre performances, and theory only an expansion of Vygotsky’s theory?’ For novels in the early 1920s have not been translated in many reasons, there was very little published concern- other languages. ing Leont’ev’s work during the 1930s. This seemed to Different kinds of mistakes and distortions have been lead to a ‘vacuum zone’. In the same paper a theoretical detected in English translations of Vygotsky’s works: in- comparison is presented of commonalities and differenc- accuracies, suppression of terms or passages, suppression es of Leontiev and Rubinstein as discussed by Chinese of names, unidentified or suppressed citations, omis- researchers [27]. Some differences between Leontiev’s sions, and outright falsifications [32, 64]. These mistakes and Rubinstein’s versions of activity theory have been and distortions have emerged at different moments in analyzed by other scholars [29; 9] (the different under- the path from the manuscripts and published papers to standing of the subject matter of psychology and the re- Soviet editions of Vygotsky’s writing and after their lationship between internalization-externalization may translations into English (or other languages). be considered as most important among them). An ‘archival revolution’ in Vygotskian studies has The presentation of Vygotsky’s, Leontiev’s and Lu- taken place. Both publications of Vygotsky’s private ar- ria’s legacy are part of the same theoretical framework: chives and new undistorted editions of Vygotsky’s writ- similarly, what was defined as CH/AT is common to ings have opened up new opportunities for investigation the three avenues of the introduction of Soviet psychol- and understanding of Vygotsky’s legacy [79; 80; 81; 82;

32 КУЛЬтурно-историческая психология 2016. т. 12. № 3 Cultural-Historical psychology. 2016. Vol. 12, no. 3

83; 84]. Vygotskaia’s and Lifanova’s book paints a vivid Vygotsky’s research programme remains an open-ended picture of Vygotsky’s life [73]. S.F. Dobkin’s memoirs question. The first steps in this direction have been made highlight Vygotsky’s early life and early development by Veresov [66]. But even so, the path remains open and as a thinker [25]. Vygotsky’s reviews of theater perfor- researchers still have much work do in order to reveal mances, and novels offer a useful insight for an under- the contradictions in the development of Vygotsky’s standing of the later foundation of cultural historical research programme in its different stages. From this psychology [24]. A special mention should be made of standpoint, the conceptual and methodological investiga- the contribution of the Journal of Russian and East Eu- tion of cultural-historical theory as a developmental pro- ropean Psychology in recent archival publications. More- cess constitutes the most difficult and challenging issue. over, in the context of the ‘PsyAnima Complete Vy- gotsky’ project many ‘forgiven’ Vygotsky’s writings have been republished. This project aims “at republishing all Conclusion Vygotsky’s works and most of works of the representa- tives of Vygotsky’s Circle” [47]. Vygotsky’s legacy has become a source of inspiration However, by itself the new disclosure of Vygotsky’s for many psychologists and educators around the world. life and the new editions of Vygotsky’s writings is nec- Researchers and educators from different parts of the essary, but not sufficient condition for a deeper under- globe have accepted many ideas of Vygotsky and other standing of his theory. In my opinion, the creative recon- Soviet psychologists, because “it seemed to fill certain struction of Vygotsky’s theory is possible on the basis of gaps and answer important questions that had hitherto the investigation of three interconnected aspects: (a) the remained unanswered” [28, p. 644]. cultural, historical context of its appearance and devel- The recent study has found that there are multiple opment, (b) the specific juncture in the history of sci- readings and interpretations of Vygotsky’s theory. ence, the particular scientific context and links of cultur- Moreover, Vygotsky’s theory has been incorporated in a al-historical theory with other theories and (c) the path radically different theoretical and methodological ‘para- of Vygotsky’s life and the development of his scientific digm’. Cognitivism, cultural relativism and CHAT con- program during his life. stitute different frameworks which have emerged in re- Contextualizing cultural-historical psychology in the sponse to demands arising mainly in the North Atlantic history of science as a ‘drama of ideas’ allows assessment context. There is a strong tendency for the integration of Vygotsky’s contribution in promoting psychological and incorporation of Vygotsky’s theory into mainstream knowledge. Vygotsky’s creativity in science is a com- North Atlantic research. The North Atlantic schemes for plex phenomenon and for its comprehension a concrete the reception and implementation of Vygotsky’s theory historical investigation of the mutual interaction of the have been expanded across countries in various parts of social, the scientific and the personal dimensions on the the globe. process of knowledge production is essential. There are at least three main problems in the recep- Vygotsky was in a creative dialogue with many dif- tion of cultural historical psychology in North-Atlantic ferent thinkers and trends in the history of philosophy research. The first problem is connected with a frag- and science such as Spinoza, Hegel, Marx, Nietzsche, mented reading of particular ideas of Vygotsky, which and Darwin. Vygotsky was “a child of the Silver Age of dominates in North-Atlantic research without enough Russian culture and philosophy and the influence of this understanding of the theoretical programme in which should not be underestimated” [67, p. 45]. these ideas have been included. For example, some frag- In accordance with the traditional portrayal of Vy- mented ideas such as ZPD, sign mediation, etc. in sepa- gotsky’s theory, Vygotsky is presented as a solitary ration from the methodology of cultural historical psy- genius. The new inquiries are focused on Vygotsky’s chology tend to become a synonym of Vygotsky’s theory. personal network of scholars. The personal network of The dialectical understanding of human development Vygotsky includes not only the members of the ‘troika’ disappeared in the mainstream interpretations of Vy- (Lev Vygotsky, Alexander Luria and Aleksei Leontiev) gotsky’s theory as cognitivism, cultural psychology and or ‘petiorka’ Alexander Zaporozhets, Lidia Bozhovich, CHAT. Moreover, in the mainstream interpretations of Roza Levina, Nataliya Morozova and Liya Slavina), Vygotsky’s theory it is hard to find the understanding but also many others individuals: Leonid Vladimirov- that cultural historical theory is not a closed system of ich Zankov (1901—1977), Boris Efimovich Varshava ideas which can be applied in an already prepared form (1900—1927), Zhozefina Il’inichna Shif (1904—1978), in practice, but a dynamic, developmental process. Ivan Mikhailovich Solov’ev (1902-1986), Nikolai Alek- The second problem is frequently that the expansion sandrovich Bernstein (1897—1982), Soviet film director and application of cultural-historical psychology in the Sergei Mikhailovich Eisenstein (1898—1948), poet Osip different social settings does not connect with a consid- Mandelstam, etc. [78]. Cultural historical psychology eration of the social and scientific context of its forma- emerged in a dialogue with these and many others per- tion. The reconstruction of the theoretical programme of sonalities of Vygotsky’s personal network. cultural historical psychology in the social and scientific Many researchers have contributed essentially to context of its formation may provide a framework for de- the study of Vygotsky’s life and sketch the biography of lineation of its achievements and limitations. his ideas [33; 63; 73; 66; 30]. However, the conceptual Moreover, as Veresov notes “in order to introduce and methodological investigation of the development of Vygotsky’s theory to world psychology the Western

33 Dafermos M. Critical Reflection on the Reception of Vygotsky’s Theory... Дафермос М. Критический анализ принятия теории Л.С. Выготского...

Vygotskians simplified and adapted the whole picture theory and stimulates its reconsideration and recon- to the existing tradition” [68, p. 290]. Many contempo- ceptualization. In the light of new findings as the re- rary researchers and practitioners have not developed sult of the ‘archival revolution’ it has become clear that a critical reflection on their own cognitive schemes Vygotsky’s legacy remains “partly forgotten and partly and their connections to personal, collective and social misunderstood” [68, p. 269] or as Elhammoumi argues practices. “terra incognita” [19]. Understanding Vygotsky’s theory requires posing at Future research should focus on developing Vy- least the following questions: why do we need Vygotsky’s gotsky’s theory and methodology in the 21st century theory? Why do we focus on the particular aspects of and rethinking cultural historical theory from the per- Vygotsky’ legacy (and not on some others)? What do we spective of problems arising in psychological, educa- attempt to do with Vygotsky’s ideas? tional, and social practice around the globe. Moving The ‘archival revolution’ in Vygotskian studies chal- with and beyond Vygotsky remains unexplored terri- lenges the mainstream interpretations of Vygotsky’s tory [3].

Acknowledgment The author would like to thank professor Nikolay Veresov for his valuable comments and suggestions to improve the quality of the chapter.

References gotskian perspectives. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1985, pp. 35—65 1. Ageyev V.S.. Vygotsky in the mirror of cultural inter- 15. Davydov V.V. A new approach to the interpretation of pretations. In Kozulin A. (eds.) Vygotsky’s educational theory activity structure and content. In Chaiklin S. (eds.) Activity in cultural context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, theory and social practice. Aarhus: Aarhus University Press, 2003, pp. 432—449. 1999, pp. 39—50. 2. Allakhverdov V., Ivanov M. In search of a rational an- 16. Gillen J. Versions of Vygotsky. British Journal of Edu- swer to a postmodernist question. Culture & Psychology, 2008. cational Studies, 2000. Vol. 48 ( 2), pp. 183—198. Vol. 14(1), pp. 71—79. 17. Gonzalez Rey F. L., Mitjans Martinez A. Three criti- 3. Barahona M., Mata Benitez M. L., Dafermos M., Hak- cal approaches to psychology in Latin America — their rise karainen P. Moving with and Beyond Vygotsky. Cultural-his- and fall. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 2013, no. 10, torical psychology, 2014., no. 1, pp. 104—106. pp. 642—662. 4. Bruner J. Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard 18. Elkonin D.B. Ob istochnikakh neklassicheskoi psik- University Press, 1990. 181p. hologii [On the sources of non—classical psychology]. In Elko- 5. Brushlinskii A.V. Kulturno-istoricheskaia teoriia nin D.B. Izbrannye psikhologicheskie trudy [Selected psychologi- myshleniia (filosoficheskie problemy psikhologii) [The cul- cal writings]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1989, pp. 475—478. tural-historical theory of thinking (philosophical problems of 19. Elhammoumi M. Vygotsky’s scientific psychology: psychology)]. Moscow: Vysshaia Shkola, 1968. Terra incognita. Cultural-historical psychology, 2009, no. 9, 6. Cole M. Cultural psychology: A once and future disci- pp. 49—54. pline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996. 389p. 20. Engeström Y. Learning by Expanding: An Activity— 7. Cole M., Engeström Y. Cultural-historical approaches Theoretical Approach to Developmental Research. Helsinki: to designing for development. In J. Valsiner & A. Rosa (eds.) Orienta-Konsultit Oy, 1987. The Cambridge Handbook of Sociocultural Psychology. Cam- 21. Engeström Y. Expansive Learning at Work: toward an bridge, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 460—483. activity theoretical reconceptualization. Journal of Education 8. Dafermos M. Soviet Psychology. In Teo T. (ed.) Ency- and Work, 2001. Vol.14 (1), pp. 133—156. clopedia of Critical Psychology. New York: Springer, 2014, pp. 22. Engeström Y., Miettinen R., Punamaki R.L. (eds.). Per- 1828—1835. spectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer- 9. Dafermos M. Activity theory. In Parker I. (eds.) Hand- sity Press, 1999. 462 p. book of critical psychology. London and New York: Routledge, 23. Engeström Y., Lompscher J., Rückriem G. (eds.) Put- 2015, pp. 261—270. ting Activity Theory to Work: Contributions from develop- 10. Dafermos M., Marvakis A. Mediated getting-to-know- mental work research. Berlin: Lehmanns Media, 2005. 637 p. the-world- Approaching learning with S.L. Rubinstein. In 24. Feingenberg I.M. (ed.). L.Vygotsky: the way he start- Stenner P. (eds.) Theoretical Psychology: global transformations ed. Jerusalem: Jerusalem Publishing Centre, 1996. 106 p. and Challenges. Ontario: Cactus Press, 2011, pp. 94—104. 25. Feingenberg I.M. (ed.). From Gomel to Moscow: the 11. Daniels H. (ed.). Charting the Agenda: Educational Beginning of L.S.Vygotsky’s creative way. S.F. Dobkin’s Mem- Activity after Vygotsky. London: Routledge, 1993. 215 p. oirs L.S.Vygotsky’s Early Essays. New York: The Edwin Mellen 12. Daniels H. An introduction to Vygotskian theory. In Press, 2000. 118 p. Daniels H. (eds.) Vygotsky and research. London, NY: Rout- 26. Hakkarainen P. Editor’s Introduction. Challenges of ledge, 2008, pp. 1—18. Activity Theory. Journal of Russian and East European Psy- 13. Daniels H., Cole M., Wertsch J. Editors’ Introduction. chology, 2004. Vol. 42 (2), pp. 3—11. In Daniels H. (eds.) The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky. 27. Hong J., Yang N., Cheng L. Current Situation and Future Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 1—20. Development of Activity Theory in China. Actio: An International 14. Davydov V.V., Radzikhovskii L.A. Vygotsky’s the- Journal of Human Activity Theory, 2007, no. 1, pp. 115—131. ory and the activity—oriented approach in psychology. In 28. Hyman L. The Soviet Psychologists and the Path to Wertsch J. (ed.) Culture, communication, and cognition: Vy- International Psychology. In Renn J. (ed.) The Globalization of

34 КУЛЬтурно-историческая психология 2016. т. 12. № 3 Cultural-Historical psychology. 2016. Vol. 12, no. 3

Knowledge in History (pp. 631—668). Berlin: Edition Open Ac- 50. Robbins D. Critical Review of Sociocultural Theory, cess series of the Max Planck Research Library for the History Cognitivism, Postmodernism: Redefining L.S. Vygotsky’s and Development of Knowledge Studies, 2012. Non—Classical Psychology. Journal of Intercultural Pragmat- 29. Jones P. Rubinshtein and Vygotsky /Leontiev: differ- ics, 2007. Vol. 4 (1). Available at: URL: http://faculty.ucmo. ences, 2000, Retrieved 10-09-2013.(Accessed 28.2.2013) edu/drobbins/pdf/110%20Intercultural%20Prag.%202007. 30. Keiler P. Lev Vygotskij — ein Leben für die Psycholo- pdf (Accessed 28.2.2013). gie. Weinheim, Basel: Beltz, 2002. 484 p. 51. Rogoff B. The Cultural Nature of Human Develop- 31. Keiler P. Cultural-Historical Theory” and “Cultural— ment. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003. 448 p. Historical School”: From Myth (Back) to Reality. Dubna Psy- 52. Rückriem G. Digital Technology and Mediation: chological Journal, 2012, no. 1, pp. 1—33. A Challenge to Activity Theory In Sannino A. (eds.) Learn- 32. Kellogg D., Yasnitsky A. The differences between the ing and Expanding with Activity Theory. Cambridge University Russian and English texts of Tool and Sign in Child Develop- Press, 2009, pp. 88 —111. ment. Supplementary and analytic materials. PsyAnima, Dub- 53. Said E.W. Traveling Theory. In Said E.W. The World, na Psychological Journal, 2011. Vol. 4(4), pp. 98—158. the Text, and the Critic. Cambridge: Harvard UP,1983, 33. Kozulin A. Vygotsky’s Psychology: A Biography of pp. 226—247. Ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990. 296 p. 54. Sawchuk P.H., Duarte N., Elhammoumi M. Critical Per- 34. Leontiev A.N., Luria, A.R. Vygotsky’s psychological spectives on Activity. Explorations Across Education, Work, and views. In L.S. Vygotskii Selected psychological works. Moscow: Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006. Academia Pedagogisheskih nauk, 1956, pp. 4—36. 55. Stetsenko A., Arievitch I.M. Vygotskian collaborative 35. Leontiev A.N., Luria A.R., Teplov B.M. Predislovie project of social transformation History, politics, and practice [Foreword]. In Leontiev A.N. (eds.) L.S. Vygotskii, Razvitie in knowledge construction. International Journal of Critical vysshikh psikhicheskikh funktsii. Iz neopublikovannykh trudov Psychology, 2004a, no. 12(4), pp. 58—80. [Development of the higher psychical functions. From non—pub- 56. Stetsenko A., Arievitch I.M. The self in cultural—his- lished works]. Moscow: Academia Pedagogisheskih nauk, 1960, torical activity theory: Reclaiming the unity of social and indi- pp. 3—10. vidual dimensions of human development. Theory & Psychol- 36. Lima E.S. Vygotsky’s Cultural—Historical Theory of ogy, 2004. Vol. 14(4), pp. 475—503. Human Development: An International Perspective. Anthro- 57. Takaya K. Jerome Bruner’s Theory of Education: From pology & Education Quarterly, 1995. Vol. 26 (4), pp. 443—457. Early Bruner to Later Bruner. Interchange, 2008. Vol. 39(1), 37. Lima E.S. Vygotsky in the International Scene: a pp. 1—19. brief Overview. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 1995. 58. Toulmin S. The Mozart of Psychology. New York Re- Vol. 26(4), pp. 490—499. view of Books, 1978. September 28, pp. 51—57. 38. Lifanova T. M. L. S. Vygotsky’s works bibliography 59. Toomela A. Activity Theory Is a Dead End for Cul- in Russian and foreign languages. Voprocy Psychologii, 1996, tural-Historical Psychology. Culture & Psychology, 2000. no. 5, pp. 137—157. Vol. 6(3), pp. 353—364. 39. Martin—Baro I. Writings for a liberation psychology. 60. Toomela A. Vygotskian Cultural—Historical and So- Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1994. 256 p. ciocultural Approaches Represent Two Levels of Analysis: 40. Martins J.B. Notes on the relationship between Vy- Complementarity Instead of Opposition. Culture Psychology, gotsky and Leontiev: The “troika”, did it ever exist? Dubna 2008. Vol. 14, pp. 57—69. Psychological Journal, 2013, no. 1, pp. 84—94. 61. Valsiner J. Developmental Psychology in the Soviet 41. Matusov E. Applying a sociocultural approach to Union. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press, 1988. 398 p. Vygotskian academia: ‘Our tsar isn’t like yours, and yours 62. Van der Veer R., Valsiner J. Introduction. In Van der isn’t like ours’. Culture & Psychology, 2008. Vol. 14(1), Veer R. (eds.) The Vygotsky Reader. Cambridge, Massachu- pp. 5—35. setts: Blackwell Publishers, 1994, pp. 1—9. 42. McLeod S. ZPD, 2012. [Electronic resource]. URL: 63. Van der Veer R., Valsiner J. Understanding Vygotsky: http://www.simplypsychology.org/Zone-of-Proximal-Devel- A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell, 1991. 450 p. opment.html (Accessed 10.09.2013) 64. Van der Veer R., Yasnitsky A.. Vygotsky in English: 43. Miller R. Vygotsky in Perspective. Cambridge: Cam- What Still Needs to Be Done. Integrative Psychological & Be- bridge University Press, 2011. havioral Science, 201. Vol. 45(4), pp. 475—493. 44. Newman F., Holzman, L. Lev Vygotsky: Revolutionary 65. Varela F., Thompson Rosch E. The embodied mind. Scientist. London, New York: Routledge, 1993, pp. 252. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1993. 308 p. 45. Olson D.. Education: The Bridge from Culture to 66. Veresov N. Undiscovered Vygotsky: Etudes on the Mind. In Bakhurst D. (eds.) Jerome Bruner: Language, Culture, Prehistory of Cultural—historical Psychology. Frankfurt am Self. London: Sage, 2001, pp. 104—115. Main: Peter Lang, 1999. 281p. 46. Papadopoulos D. Observations on Vygotsky’s recep- 67. Veresov N. Marxist and non-Marxist aspects of the cul- tion in academic psychology. In Tolman C.W. (ed.) Problems tural-historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky. Outlines, 2005. of theoretical psychology. North York, Ontario: Captus Press, Vol. 1, pp. 31—49. 1996, pp. 145—155. 68. Veresov N. Forgotten Methodology. Vygotsky’s case. 47. PsychAnima. PsyAnima Полное собрание сочинений In Toomela A. (eds.) Methodological Thinking in Psychology: 60 Выготского [Electronic resource] [PsyAnima Complete Vy- Years Gone Astray? Charlotte, NC.: Information Age Publish- gotsky], 2012. URL: http://psyanimajournal.live—journal. ing, 2009, pp. 267—295. com/3526.html. (Accessed 15.09.2013) 69. Vygotsky L.S. The problem of the cultural develop- 48. Radzikhovskii L. A. Analysis of L.S. Vygotsky’s leg- ment of the child, II. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1929. acy by Soviet psychologists. Voprosy psikhologii, 1979, no. 6, Vol. 36, pp. 414—434. pp. 58—67. 70. Vygotsky L.S. The Historical Meaning of the cri- 49. Robbins D. Prologue. In Richer R. (eds.) The collect- sis of psychology. In Rieber R. (eds.) The Collected works of ed works of Vygotsky. New York: Plenum Press, 1999. Vol. 6, L.S. Vygotsky. New York, London: Plenum Press, 1997. Vol. 3, pp. v—xxii. pp. 233—344.

35 Dafermos M. Critical Reflection on the Reception of Vygotsky’s Theory... Дафермос М. Критический анализ принятия теории Л.С. Выготского...

71. Vygotsky L.S. Consciousness as a problem in the psy- arkhiva [Notebooks, notes, scientific diaries of L.S. Vygotsky: chology of behavior. In Rieber R. (eds.) The Collected works of the results of the investigation of the family archive, part 1]. L.S. Vygotsky. New York, London: Plenum Press, 1997. Vol. 3, Voprosy psikhologii, 2008, no.1, pp. 132—145. pp. 63—79. 80. Zavershneva E. Zapisnye knizhki, zametki, nauchnye 72. Vygotsky L.S. The history of the development of high- dnevniki L.S. Vygotskogo: rezul’taty issledovaniya semejnogo er mental functions. In Rieber R. (eds.) The Collected works of arkhiva [Notebooks, notes, scientific diaries of L.S. Vygotsky: L.S. Vygotsky. New York: Plenum, 1997c. Vol. 4, pp. 1—252. the results of the investigation of the family archive, part 2]. 73. Vygodskaya G.L., Lifanova T.M. Lev Semenovich Vy- Voprosy psikhologii, 2008. Vol. 2, pp. 120—136. gotsky. Life. Work. Brush Strokes of the Portrait. Moscow: 81. Zavershneva E. Issledovanie rukopisi L.S. Vygotskogo Smysl, 1996. 420 p. “Istoricheskii smysl psi—khologicheskogo krizisa” [An investi- 74. Wertsch J. Voices of the Mind A Sociocultural Ap- gation of the manuscript of L.S. Vygotsky’s “Historical mean- proach to Mediated Action. Cambridge: Harvard University ing of psychological crisis”]. Voprosy psikhologii, 2009. Vol. 6, Press, 1991. 169 p. pp. 119—137. 75. Yamagata-Lynch L.C. Activity Systems Analysis 82. Zavershneva E. The Vygotsky family archive (1912— Methods. Understanding Complex Learning Environments. 1934). New findings. Journal of the Russian and East European New York: Springer, 2010. 148 p. Psychology, 2010, no. 48(1), pp. 14—33. 76. Yaroshevsky M.G., Gurgenidze G.S. Epilogue. In 83. Zavershneva E. The Vygotsky family archive: new Rieber R. (eds.) The Collected works of L.S.Vygotsky. New York, findings. Notebooks, Notes, and Scientific Journals of L.S. Vy- London: Plenum Press, 1997. Vol. 3, pp. 345—370. gotsky (1912—1934). Journal of the Russian and East European 77. Yasnitsky A. “Archival Revolution” in Vygotskian Psychology, 2010. Vol. 48 (1), pp. 34—60. Studies? Uncovering Vygotsky’s Archives. Journal of Russian 84. Zavershneva E., Osipova M. E. Osnovnye popravki k and East European Psychology, 2010. Vol. 48 (1), pp. 3—13. tekstu “Istoricheskii smysl psikhologicheskogo krizisa”, opub- 78. Yasnitsky A. as a Personal Network of likovannomu v sobranii sochinenii L.S. Vygotskogo (1982— Scholars: Restoring Connections Between People and Ideas. 1984) [Main corrections to the text of “Historical meaning Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 2011. Vol. 45, of psychological crisis” published in the collected works of pp. 422—457. L.S. Vygotsky (1982—1984)]. Voprosy psikhologii, 2010. Vol. 1, 79. Zavershneva E. Zapisnye knizhki, zametki, nauchnye pp. 92—102. dnevniki L.S. Vygotskogo: rezul’taty issledovaniya semejnogo

36