Российская психология в пространстве мировой науки

The tendency towards a kind of "partial isolation" from the mainstream, showing itself in "counterglobalist" attitudes, emerging in recent years, withdrawal of participation in the English language mainstream, are dangerous for the AT trend. Can such a science exist in contemporary world outside of mainstream? For how long? Won't a "partial isolation" turn up an ivory tower, cut off from sources of livelihood, from the influx of new blood also from psychological practice and education in Russia?

The answer to the question of the "optimum integration", the optimal combination of national specific and global traits in Russian psychology, cannot be universal and overall, and it cannot be formal. In search of "the optimum integration" it is necessary to take into account theoretical and methodological orientations of the scientists, as the motives and constraints to integration can be substantially different. It is hardly reasonable to push those who develop Russian Orthodox Psychology to publish in international journals in the same way as those who follow Western traditions. I believe it would be a big mistake to evaluate publications in high-ranking Russian journals lower than international publications. And my main concern here is the necessity of all possible support to internationalization of the AT trend, which is a highly challenging task. I believe the classification presented here can be a useful tool in determining "the optimum integration" for different types of developments in contemporary Russian psychological science.

Concerning Interpretations of Activity Theory

The history of Russian psychology is an intensively developing field in international science (Cole, 1996; Dafermos, 2014, Engestrom et al, 1999; Graham, 1993; Janousek and Sirotkina, 2003; Joravsky 1989; Valsiner 2009; Van der Veer, 2007; Vassilieva, 2010; etc.). The most recognised branch of Russian psychology outside Russia is Activity Theory (AT). However, the general view of AT in international science is lacking in important aspects and areas necessary for a proper understanding. It is generally assumed that "In the early 1930s, Vygotsky's school of thought started to disintegrate. A new school, advocating what is now known as 'activity theory', emerged in that process of disintegration (van der Veer and Valsiner, 1991). According to activity theory, the emergence and development of mind is determined by the activity an animal or a human being is involved in (Leontiev, 1981)" (Toomela, 2000, p. 353). There are stark discrepancies between scholars as to whether L. S. Vygotsky and S. L. Rubinstein should be considered as the authors of AT, while the theory of A. N. Leontiev is generally acknowledged as the "mainstream" of AT. Moreover, the image of the AT school in international science is often reduced to the theory of Leontiev, so that criticism of AT increasing in the literature (Toomela, 2000, 2007), should actually be attributed to Leontiev theory.

Alternative ideas of Leontiev's predecessors and theories of the AT school in Russian psychology contemporary to Leontiev remain obscure for the international scientific community. This state-of-the-art can be explained by considering the historical situation in which the term "Activity Theory" entered into international science. This term entered into the international mainstream from the works of A. N. Leontiev. Since the late 1950s A. N. Leontiev's works were repeatedly republished in the USSR in translations into English, Danish, Spanish, German, Finnish, and other languages. Activity Theory" is the usual translation of the "Theory of Dejatelnost" which Leontiev developed. The theory of Leontiev as he himself acknowledged was based on theoretical reasoning of his great predecessors: S. L. Rubinstein and L. S. Vygotsky. That is why in the context of international science the term AT actually turned out to comprise the whole trend dominating Soviet psychology for the greater part of the XXth c, based on ideas of the procreative role of vital activity of a living being for psyche formation.

Here we use the term "Activity Theory" to denote this trend, to fit the content of the concept established in the international literature.

Theoretical foundations of the Activity Theory