Российская психология в пространстве мировой науки

Ananiev points out a divergent type and a convergent type of aging. The convergent type is characterized by total decrease of functions with ageing, which happens when the psyche's operational and motivational mechanisms are not duly established in the course of life-span development. In the case of the divergent type of ageing, operational and motivational mechanisms provide stability of psycho-physiological functions and even of their progress, which is manifested by optima of certain functions in old age, beyond the limits of biological growth. In the case of the divergent type of aging a total decrease of functions is opposed by active dynamical brain centers resisting decrepitude.

The Ananiev Model of Human Life-Span Development (the "Individuality concept")

Individualization, the increase of individual singularity, is the main effect of human development and its indicator for Ananiev. Ananiev considers individualization as the most important pattern of human ontogenetic development: "Human life journey (biography) influences ontogenetic evolution via the more and more increasing individualization of this evolution" (Ananiev, 1977, p. 165). But "Individuality" is not only individual differences. It is a holistic structure, essentially individual by nature, which emerges in the course of human life activities, bringing to harmony human tendencies and potentials. It turns to be the cause and the result of the integration of natural and cultural development.

According to Ananiev, human psychic development manifests itself in three expressly separated planes:

• Ontogenetic evolution of psycho-physiological functions (Man and Nature bias).

• Life journey – personality history (Man and Society bias).

• Development of man's activities as an agent of labour, cognition and communication (Man and Civilization bias).

Thus the process of human development is biased by the laws of Nature, Society and Civilization, relatively independently and potentially in contradiction. There is no Universal Law of human development, there is only a number of relatively independent factors, and their influence is mediated and integrated by the human individuality to constitute a holistic structure of the human psyche. It is the individuality which determines the vector, direction and route of development. Individuality from early age manifests itself by refracting and combining Nature, Culture and Civilization. In mature age, the individuality factor becomes dominant, determining individual development of psychophysiological functions in adulthood.

A human being in Ananiev's theory stands out as, first, a historically concrete type, specific in its psychic organization in different moments of history, as Vygotsky stressed and second, as a self-determining creator of one's own self in the tradition of Rubinstein.

Ananiev's theory also stands out for its' humanistic appeal. Being mainly concerned with striking social effects on human biology, he was very well aware of the natural limits of this flexibility. He believed the main practical aim of psychological science is to help the individual in seeking his unique way of coping with the situation and himself, becoming the master of his own life and obtaining individual harmony.

Ananiev's theory remains mainly unknown to the scientific community outside Russia. At the same time, Ananiev's methodology and theory seem to be fruitful even nowadays within the intensively developing areas of the world's psychological science. Among the areas of research and topical issues may be named, alongside the impact of personality on psycho-physiological functions, the areas of life-span human development, analysis of development in various age periods from the point of view of the holistic context of human life, and age dynamics in adulthood.

Conclusion

Activity theory is the trend which shaped the development of psychological science in Russia throughout the Soviet period. It is based on the ideas of the procreative role of vital activity of a living being for psyche formation. Its representation in English-speaking science is depleted by not enough light being shed upon the complex and dialectic nature of the trend. A general tendency to unambiguous reduction of AT to the theory of Leontiev – however brilliant the latter is, and however significant is its impact on Russian psychology – impoverishes the creative potentialities and capabilities of the trend.