Российская психология в пространстве мировой науки

Таким образом, в контексте неизбежного, на мой взгляд, хотя и не равномерного, не всеобщего и не повсеместного прогресса психологии в XXI веке отечественные теория и методология представляются остро актуальными и обладают существенным потенциалом развития. Для того чтобы российская психология была воспринята мировым профессиональным сообществом как самобытная школа, необходима многоплановая и настойчивая работа российских психологов. В русле решения этой задачи особое значение имеет прояснение профессионального самосознания: переход от аморфных и внутренне противоречивых общих представлений о том, что представляет собой российская психология и какое место она занимает в контексте мировой науки, к образу четкому и дифференцированному, от понятия по сути географического, к понятию концептуальному. Очевидно, что не все российские психологи придут в результате к единому мнению. Однако я полагаю, экспликация и прояснение имеющего место «сосуществования и сложного взаимодействия различных имиджей и позиций» [Юревич, 2006, с. 12] являются необходимым условием обеспечения развития традиций отечественных теории и методологии в мировой науке современного посткризисного периода.

Resume

Integrative and isolationist tendencies in contemporary Russian Psychological Science

Hardly any of Russian psychologists today can stay indifferent to the question of the place and significance of Russian psychology in the world science and concomitant issues of integration into the global mainstream. The more so that formal evaluations of the work of Russian scientists are more and more determined by the presence or absence of their publications in foreign scientific journals and reference systems. The adequacy of such evaluation criteria and in general of that straightforward focus on the mainstream raise debates among Russian psychologists and demand analysis which is presented in a number of publications (Akser and Saveljeva, 2010; Mironenko, 2005; Mironenko, 2007b; Sirotkina and Smith, 2008; Yurevich 2008a; 2008b; 2009; 2010a; 2010b; Yurevich and Tzapenko 2010; Yasnitsky 2011). We particularly note the works of A. V. Yurevich where the problem of the integration of Russian psychology into the mainstream and the applicability of the above-mentioned criteria for the evaluation of the work of Russian scientists are considered in the broad context of social processes in the professional community.

A. V. Yurevich notes, that among Russian psychologists today we can trace both "globalist" (integrative) and "counterglobalist" (isolationist) tendencies: "Straightforward orientation to Western standards, prescribing Russian science erasing national specificity comes along side with the same straightforward denial of the need to adjoin to the world mainstream " (Yurevich 2010b, p.55).

One cannot but agree with the conclusion of A. V. Yurevich that "the obvious inadequacy of both two extreme positions and the need to preserve most prolific national features of Russian science on one hand and on the other hand, the need of integration into the global mainstream, makes feasible the compliance of the principle of optimum integration "(Yurevich 2010b, p.55).

But what should be this optimum, what issues should be considered in order to define this optimum – these remain debatable, and this I would like to discuss.

For what purpose are Russian psychologists seeking integration into the mainstream? Who and why needs it (or does not need) in the heterogeneous contemporary Russian professional community? What motives bring forth the "globalist" and "counterglobalist" tendencies?

Let us try to reveal groups in our professional community within which interests and ideals of the participants seem to be more or less the same in relation to integration with the mainstream.

Our assessment will be based on theoretical grounds and predilections within the groups. To identify those let us consider the situation in which the contemporary psychological community was formed.