Российская психология в пространстве мировой науки

The latter proposition he believed to be the essential one and the key to psychological analysis. Under the supervision of Leontiev much experimental and theoretical research was performed at the Moscow State University. Mostly known is the conception of formation of mental operations developed by Piotr Y. Galperin (1902–1989). The above – mentioned idea of Leontiev, that the structure of psychic processes is isomorphic to the structure of outward activity from which psyche is a derivative, was explained and developed by Galperin. According to his theory, initially an operation (for example counting) is carried out outwardly (counting sticks, for example), and then, passing through a number of certain phases, it is internalized and turns up as a mental operation. Leontiev's ideas have been put to educational practice by Elkonin and Davidov (Davidov, 1986) whose works laid foundations of Soviet pedagogical science.

Leontiev's propositions can be considered rather as elaborations of Rubinstein's proposition B, concerning how psyche is shaped, but these elaborations are more narrow and one-sided interpretations of Rubinstein's general formula. Rubinstein considers the interaction between the individual with the environment as a substrate generating psyche. But this does not mean that material interaction is the only and even the main factor, determining psychic development. His stressing of internal subjective mediation of external stimuli should not be underestimated. The inner, the subjective (and first of all motivational phenomena), for Rubinstein determined not only the objective process of interaction with the environment (external), but also the subjective experiencing of this interaction (internal), thus, psyche formation can never be viewed as a straightforward one-sided process of internalization of the outward processes.

Building on the Rubinstein's position of the initial role and decisive significance of active interaction with the environment for the development of the psyche, and on Vygotsky's position of internalization of the structure of mental functions initially formed in the course of outward activity, Leontiev neglected the idea of his predecessors of the key role of internal factors of activity, determining the vector of individual interaction with the environment.

In the theories of Rubinstein and Vygotsky development is considered primarily as a self – actualization of the individual aiming at his own goals. Mastering cultural tools of mental and motor activity, an individual appears to be a self-determining creator of himself and the "sub'ekt" of his own life.

The concept of self-determination appeared in Western theories in 1970s, and since then it has been developed in the context of a teleological humanitarian approach, viewed as an intrinsic quality of a human being, which can explain human behavior – itself beyond explanation (Deci, 1971, 1975; Deci and Ryan, 1985). In Russian psychology the concept of self-determination dates back to the 1920s, when it was defined by S. L. Rubinstein as "sub'ekt". Soviet psychology was oriented to the standards of natural science[18], and so in the AT foundations a causal approach to self-determination was laid, that was relevant to the natural science. But it was not in the Leontiev school that the ideas of self-determination were developed.

The reasons why Leontiev's views prevailed in the literature, and why there was virtually no discussion, can be revealed by historical analysis.

Was there a disagreement between A. N. Leontiev and his predecessors? A. N. Leontiev and L. S. Vygotsky

Theoretical discrepancies between A. N. Leontiev and L. S.Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev and S. L. Rubinstein, can hardly be assessed and understood separately from the history of their personal relations, the latter being strongly impacted by developments in the political life of the totalitarian state, making the history of Soviet psychology what A. V. Petrovsky called "a political history of psychology" (Petrovsky 2000). As a matter of fact, there were no open and free discussions in Soviet science.