The first Saratov professor of psychology A. A. Krogius: On the 150th anniversary of the scientist

The article is devoted to the 150th anniversary of the outstanding scientist of the XX century A. A. Krogius (1871–1933), who was at the origin of Russian experimental psychology and pedology in the early 1900s, the founder of Russian typhlopsychology. Krogius was a European-famous psychologist and worked for 12 years (1919–1931) at the Saratov University, becoming the first professor of psychology in Saratov. The article considers the features of the appearance of a successful petersburgian Krogius in provincial Saratov in 1919, presents the specifics of his work at the Saratov University, analyzes the discrepancies that appeared in the Saratov period of the scientist’s life between the principles of Soviet psychology that were being formed at that time and the methodology of Krogius’ research. Using the example of his fate and the biographical method, as well as the psychological analysis of documentary sources, newspaper articles, letters, diary entries, the author showed the peculiarities of development in the 1920s and 1930s both Russian and regional Saratov psychology, associated with the rejection of the previous scientific traditions formed in domestic psychology as part of European and world science, and the process of formation of a new Soviet psychology, sometimes associated with the destruction of the specific destinies of its participants.

Subject-activity approach of S.L. Rubinstein: Neo-Kantianism and Marxism

Pages history Soviet psychology often contain gaps, which are due to incomplete or inaccessible sources as well as to ideological distortions реrception and interpretation events epoch totalitarianism. Historical-psychological reconstructions, inspired these days archival and revisionist turns, as well as methodology latent change, offer other interpretative models, on one hand, overcoming established mythologems, and on other, revealing а complex, contradictory and ambiguous picture development socio-humanitarian knowledge first half 20th сеntury. Under influence globalization and transnational research projects, contemporary Russian historiography in one way or another updates its methodological tools, turns to polyparadigmatics and transdisciplinarity, and shifts from linear interpretative schemes to constructions that include marginal and non-obvious narratives and discourses along with canonical ones. In light new interpretive model, which takes into асcount historio-graphical materials related sciences as well as hidden currents Soviet culture, three methodological milestones are singled for analysis in S.L. Rubinstein’s intellectual biography: neo-Kantian, Marxist, and anthropological (existential) реriods scientific work. It is emphasized that Soviet historiography left almost no doubts concerning Marxist foundations S.L. Rubinstein’s subjectivе-асtivity арproach, but other models interpretation not only immerse Russian psychology in context epistemological twists and turns in socio-humanitarian knowledge 20th сеntury, but also problematize established ideas and call them into question. Among such problematizations is а comprehension neo-Kantian and Marxist premises S.L. Rubinstein’s doctrine. It is stated that principle creative асtivity, notion self-development and individuation subject, problem ethics and values as internal guidelines human development represent latent neo-Kantianism in intellectual biography scientist.

Philosopher of psychology (to the 100-th anniversary of the birth of M. S. Rogovin)

The article is dedicated to the centenary of the birth of the famous Russian psychologist M.S. Rogovin. His contribution to the development of many branches of psychological science (pathopsychology and medical psychology, military psychology, cognitive psychology, general psychology, history of psychology, methodology of psychology, etc.) is noted. His contribution to the philosophy of psychology is emphasized, it is noted that his research devoted to the logic of the development of psychological science was of the greatest relevance. The article attempts to highlight the main features of the scientist's scientific style. On the basis of the historical and methodological analysis of the development of world psychological science carried out by M.S. Rogovin, an attempt is made to reconstruct the main provisions of the author's philosophy of psychology. It is noted that the researcher's contribution is unique: in the sixties of the twentieth century, M.S. Rogovin wrote his works, clearly and unequivocally referring to world psychology as a unified science (Soviet psychology, contrary to ideology, was considered by the author not as a new stage in the development of psychology, but in no way more than one of the directions in world science), which has its own patterns and development trends, which were the main subject of his scientific analysis. An analysis is given of M.S. Rogovin's warnings about dangerous trends in the development of psychological science, which are still relevant today. The characteristics of the decisions made by M.S. Rogovin and his students of the most important methodological issues of psychological science are given.

The experience of holistic analysis of art

This article compares two approaches: scientific, which is oriented towards the ideals of natural science; and holistic, which is oriented towards humanities. The author attributes the work of L. S. Vygotsky “Psychology of Art” to the first approach, however notices that the founder of Soviet psychology implements humanistic approach in addition to natural scientific. The object of this research is the aesthetic response; Vygotsky shows that art is the so-called machine of human development. In contrast to this, within the framework of holistic approach, the author outlines the two basic patterns that should encompass the wholeness and essence of art. On the one hand, this is artistic communication, while on the other – artistic reality. Artistic communication has ambivalent characteristics: as a special non-utilitarian environment of human life and communication, as well as historically formed semiosis of art. Both characteristics are explained using a brief genesis of establishment of art, simultaneously demonstrating the role of philosophical reflection, which is the key in determination and description of the artistic reality of artworks. The author aims to show that although artistic reality represents an artifact created with the use of expressive means, it is perceived by the audience as the world of natural events. The latter allow the audience to live to the fullest and fulfill their personality. The article discusses the alternative concepts of the purpose of art, as well as the role creativity, and realization of the writer's worldview.

On Specific Class of Cultural Phenomena Orthodox Culturology in the Time of Soviet Marxist Psychologists

The article is devoted to the analysis of the perspective of Orthodox culturology of Soviet period – cultural and historical and active approach of Soviet psychology and culturology, as well as the attitude theory. The author resorts to the works of Soviet psychologists (L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontiev, N.D. Uznadze, S.L. Rubinstein and others), culturologists and philosophers (E.V. Ilyenkov, E.S. Markaryan, M.S. Kagan and others), as well as Russian and American followers of cultural and historical psychology (E.Ya. Rezhabek, A.A. Filatova, M. Cole, J. Bruner and others). Special attention and paid to cognitive psychology and cultural neuroscience inasmuch as they are connected with cultural and historical psychology. The main emphasis is made on how various scientists choose the phenomena that can be defines as properly cultural. On the basis of the analysis of the concepts of Soviet psychologists and their American followers the author draws up the scheme of the cultural and the psychological co-relation that remains eclectic if one ignores the influence of the spiritual world on the cultural and psychological aspects.

Processing Views of Remembering

The chapter describes and discusses previous accounts that viewed human memory as an activity of mind. These include members of the “Act Psychology School” and other early psychologists described by Boring (1950). The theoretical ideas of James (1890) and Bartlett (1932) are described and discussed, especially as emphasized in Bartlett’s 1932 classic book, Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. The notions associated with “activity theory” in Soviet psychology are outlined, and the studies in educational psychology deriving from these theories are described. The relevance of Hebb’s theory of cell assemblies is pointed out, as is the congenial work of James Jenkins and his students in the 1960s and 1970s. These latter studies are a clear forerunner of later experiments in the levels of processing tradition. Finally, Robert Crowder’s views on proceduralism are summarized and discussed.

Research groups of G. I. Chelpanov: historical-psychological study

In the context of the problem of institutionalization of the Russian and Soviet psychology of the early XX century, the research is conducted on the peculiarities of organizing scientific work under the leadership of G. I. Chelpanov. For determination of the composition and characteristics of the research groups created by him, the author carries out biographical and bibliographic analysis of personal written documents, materials that characterizes the official activity of the scholars and communities, historical-psychological works dedicated to life and research activity of G. I. Chelpanov. The three scientific-educational bases for the creation of research groups headed by Chelpanov are highlighted: the Psychological Seminary at the Department of Philosophy of the Imperial University of St. Vladimir in Kiev (1897–1907), the Psychological Seminary at the Imperial Moscow University (1907–1912), and the Institute of Psychology named after L. G. Shchukina (1912–1923). The staff composition of the research groups is revealed. The novelty of this article lies in the description of G. I. Chelpanov as the pioneer of the Russian psychological science and education, who duly appreciated teamwork at the stage of establishment of psychology as big science in the early XX century. The traces the succession of the staff composition of research groups ,as well as the subject of reports and research conducted by the members of the collective, according to the plan developed by the leader G. I. Chelpanov, primarily in the scope of general psychology. It is demonstrated that in the course of socially significant activity, on the collective basis were resolved the tasks of training of competent philosophers and psychologists, and later of implementation of the research program on the development of theoretical-methodological  fundamentals of the empirical research of psyche. The authors underline the importance of individual approach implemented by Chelpanov in working with the scientific associates aimed at the development of their creative skills.

Psychological theory as administrative politics: Boris Lomov’s systems approach in the context of the Soviet science establishment

The article is a study into the advent of the ‘systems approach’ in Soviet psychology in the 1970s. This arose mainly through the theoretical publications of B. F. Lomov, written after he had been appointed director of the newly established Institute of Psychology. These publications are examined as reflections of those interests related to the sociopolitical role of the director of this leading psychology institution, which was officially charged with building a common theoretical and methodological framework for all Soviet psychology. The main goal of these texts, predetermined by the role of their author, was to advance a theoretical scheme that made possible a formal unification of the schools of psychology, and which at the same time promoted an image of psychology as a research field that was both capable of achieving practically applicable results and compatible with the new ‘big science’ trend.