Abstract
Activity theory (AT) is the most recognised part of Russian psychology outside Russia. However the general view of AT in international science is rather unilateral, lacking substantial aspects and areas necessary for proper understanding. This article is aimed at expanding the image of AT dominant in the mainstream which reduces the AT trend to A.N. Leontiev’s theory. This reduction impoverishes the creative potentialities of the trend, and decreases the ability of AT to contribute to international science. We aim to reveal that AT is not limited to Leontiev’s approach, to explain which ideas of the founders of AT, S.L. Rubinstein and L.S. Vygotsky, were pursued and which were rejected by A.N. Leontiev, and to assess another important contribution to the AT trend - the theory of B.G. Ananiev, where the ideas of AT’s founders were developed which were not succeeded by A.N. Leontiev. Historical causes and consequences of the general reduction of the image of AT in the mainstream to Leontiev’s theory are considered: why the discrepancies between views of Rubinstein, Vygotsky and Leontiev were hardly ever discussed in public and why other theories contemporary to Leontiev’s theory were never given account appropriate to their value in Russia and remain almost unknown abroad.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
When in 1923 marxist K. N. Kornilov took the place of G. I. Chelpanov at the head of the Psychological Institute the development of non-Marxian psychology in Soviet Russia was terminated.
It should be mentioned that unfortunately “Sub’ekt” is usually translated as “subject”, and this translation kills the meaning of a translated text completely, because in English “subject” means something or somebody who/which is put under some pressure, exposed to some action, subjected to some impact… This difficulty of translation of the notion of “Sub’ekt” into English could probably account for the fact that Rubinstein approach caused more interest in Germany and in Scandinavia than in the English speaking countries.
The contribution of Russian physiologists I.M. Sechenov, A.A. Ukhtomsky, I.P. Pavlov is of basic importance for the development of Soviet psychology. I.M. Sechenov came up with the idea of objective research on mental phenomena. He meant that objective factors causing psychic acts should be explained and analyzed. First of all physiological acts were supposed to be objective indications of mental phenomena. This approach had a basic impact upon the formation and development of Soviet psychology.
It is an essential thesis of Marxist theory that the evolution of society is determined by labor productivity and socialism is deemed to overcome capitalism for the reason that labor productivity would be higher.
Vygotsky was a fervent Marxist. He is reputed to have said the words: “I don’t want to live if I’m not considered to be a Marxist”.
It should be noted that the influence of the higher (social) mental functions on the development of natural mental functions became the key point in the investigations of B.G. Ananiev, described below.
References
Ananiev, B. G. (1961). Sensory processes (in Russian). Leningrad: Leningrad St. Un. Publ. 456p.
Ananiev, B. G. (1968). Human being as a subject of scientific analysis (in Russian). Leningrad: Leningrad St. Un. Publ. 339p.
Ananiev, B. G. (1977). Current problems of Human Nature Investigations (in Russian). Moscow: Science. 379p.
Ananiev, B. G., Dvorjashina, M. A., Kudrjavceva, N. A. (1968). Perceptual constancy through life-span development (in Russian). Moscow: Prosvezhenie. 334p.
Cole, M. (1996). Culture in mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determinaton in human behaviour. New York: Plenum.
Engeström, Y., Miettinen, R., & Punamäki, R. (Eds.). (1999). Perspectives on activity theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Galperin, P. Y. (1983). Concerning memoirs about A.N.Leontiev. A.N. Leontiev and Contemporary Psychology (in Russian). Moscow: MGU.
Graham, L. (1993). Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Short History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Janousek, J. and Sirotkina, I. (2003). Psychology in Russia and central and eastern Europe. Porter R.,, Porter Th.M., Ross D. P. The Cambridge History of Science: The modern social sciences, Cambridge University Press- Science. P. 431–449.
Joravsky, D. (1989). Russian Psychology: A Critical History. Oxford: Blackwell.
Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness and personality. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. http://www.marxists.org/archive/leontev/.
Leontiev, A. N. (1981). Problems of Psychic Development (in Russian). Moscow: Moscow St. Un. Publ.
Leontiev, A. N. (1999). Autobiography. In A. E. Voitkunsky, A. N. Zhdan, & O. K. Tikhomirov (Eds.), Traditions and Perspectives of Activity theory in Psychology: A.N.Leontiev’s school (in Russian). Moscow: Smysl publ.
Leontiev, A. A., Leontiev, D. A., Sokolova, E. E. (2005). Alexey Nicolaevich Leontiev (in Russian). Moscow, Smysl Publ. http://www.anleontiev.smysl.ru/index.htm
Luria, E. A. (1994). My farther A.R. Luria (in Russian). M, Gnozis.
Materials of MSU seminars on Activity theory (2012); http://www.psy.msu.ru/science/seminars/activity/materials.html
Mironenko, I. A., (2007). Ananjev’ theory in the context of modern tendencies in world psychological science (in Russian). Voprosy Psychologii, № 5, p.151–160.
Mironenko, I. A. (2009). “Great ideas” in Russian psychology: Personality impact on psycho-physiological functions and causal approach to self-determination. In Y. Zinchenko & V. Petrenko (Eds.), Psychology in Russia: State of the Art (pp. 225–238). Moscow: Department of Psychology MSU & IG-SOCIN.
Mollon, J. D., (2006). The Perception. Lecture. Perception, 2006, v.35, suppl., ECVP 2006, abstracts. P.1.
Petrovsky, A. V. (2000). Psychology in Russia in the XXth Century (in Russian) (p. 312). Moscow: URAO Publishers.
Rubinstein, S. L. (1973). Issues of General Psychology. Moscow.
Sirotkina, I. E., & Smith, R. (2008). Psychological society and social and political changes in Russia (in Russian). Methodology and History of Psychology, 3(3), 73–90.
Toomela, A. (2000). Activity theory is a dead End for cultural-historical psychology. Culture & Psychology, 6, 353–364. doi:10.1177/1354067X006300.
Toomela, A. (2008). Commentary: activity theory is a dead end for methodological thinking in cultural psychology too. Culture & Psychology, 14, 289–303. doi:10.1177/1354067X08088558.
Valsiner, J. (2009). Cultural psychology today: innovations and oversights. Culture & Psychology, 15(1), 5–40.
Van der Veer, R. (2007). Lev Vygotsky. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky. A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Vassilieva, Y. (2010). Russian Psychology at the turn of the 21st century and post-Soviet reforms in the humanities disciplines. History of Psychology, 13(2), 138–159.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1982). The collected works (in Russian).V. 1–6, M.: Pedagogika.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works V. 1–2. London: Plenum Press. http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/index.htm.
Yasnitsky, A. (2011). Isolationism of soviet psychology? Scientists, “export–import” of science and authority (in Russian). Voprosy psychologii, 2011, № 6, с. 108–121.
Yurevich, A. V. (2009). Russian Psychology in the context of international mainstream (in Russian). Methodology and History of Psychology, 4(3), 76–89.
Zinchenko, V. P. (2003). The theoretical world of Psychology. Voprosy Psychologii, 5(3), 3–12.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mironenko, I.A. Concerning Interpretations of Activity Theory. Integr. psych. behav. 47, 376–393 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-013-9231-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-013-9231-5