DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2022-1-25-37

Methodological functions of the history of psychology in modern science

Elena E. Sokolova
Doctor of Psychology, DocentAssociate Professor of the Department of General Psychology,
Lomonosov Moscow State University,
11/9, Mokhovaya st., Moscow, 125009, Russia;Researcher,
Belgorod State University,
85, Pobedy st., Belgorod, 308015, Russia;e-mail: ees-msu@mail.ru
ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2239-0858
ResearcherID: E-7728-2012

The article discusses the role of the history of psychology in the search for adequate solutions to the methodological problems of psychological science. The most recent studies of consciousness, which combine a meticulous study of anatomy and physiology of the brain with the help of modern technology and introspective reports of the bearer of consciousness, differ little in their methodological foundations from those of more than a century ago, which were subjected to sound criticism for Cartesian dualism by L.S. Vygotsky and other representatives of cultural-historical activity theory in psychology. L.S. Vygotsky’s distinction between perezhivanie (experience) and scientific knowledge gives grounds to be critical of the assertion of some representatives and supporters of analytic philosophy that it is impossible to have a scientific comprehension of consciousness, which they identify with subjective reality. A comparative historical analysis of psychological ideas of B. Spinoza, A.N. Leontiev, and E.V. Ilyenkov leads to a conclusion that, in constructing his theory of activity, A.N. Leontiev was guided not by the official Soviet version of Marxism («dialectical materialism») but by the provisions of authentic Marxism. The philosophers of E.V. Ilyenkov’s circle fairly viewed Marxism as a continuation and development of Spinozism. On this philosophical basis, A.N. Leontiev’s scientific school created the concept of activity as a peculiar substance, with consciousness (and the psyche in general) being its function. This doctrine, confirmed by numerous empirical studies and the practice of forming consciousness in ontogenesis, is a good alternative to the Cartesian-oriented research on consciousness in modern cognitive sciences, which has reached a methodological dead end. The paper also shows the role of archival research in clarifying the origin and original meaning of terminology used in psychology. For example, the study of transcripts of the 1948 discussions presented in A.N. Leontiev’s book An Essay on the Development of the Psyche reveals that the phrase «the threefold scheme of analysis» originally appeared in the speeches of Leontiev’s opponents, while these terms (later used by Leontiev himself in his book Activity. Consciousness. Personality) only confuse the matter and do not allow one to adequately understand the non-trivial view on activity as a substance of consciousness developed by A.N. Leontiev’s school. In conclusion, the author argues that the special attention of the international scientific community to the historical heritage of the founders of cultural-activity psychology is due to its specific methodology, which makes it a «science of the future» and, in turn, requires a new historical-psychological and theoretical reflection.

Keywords: history of psychology, analytic philosophy, consciousness, psychophysical problem, Cartesianism, Spinozism, Marxism, activity, substance, cultural-activity psychology, L.S. Vygotsky, A.N. Leontiev, E.V. Ilyenkov.

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by RSF, project No. 20-18-00028 «Cultural-historical psychology in the archives of its creators».

References

Akopov, G.V. (2010). Psikhologiya soznaniya: Voprosy metodologii, teorii i prikladnykh issledovaniy [Psychology of consciousness: Issues of methodology, theory and applied research]. Moscow: IP RAS Publ., 272 p.

Bataeva, L.A. and Oleynik, O.A. (2011). [«Difficult problems» in analytic philosophy of consciousness]. Voprosy filosofii. No. 12, pp. 129–138. Available at: http://vphil.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=443&Itemid=52 (accessed 21.01.2022).

Belenitskaya, O.L. (2021). [A thinking hypernet. Interview with K.V. Anokhin]. V mire nauki [In the World of Science]. No. 5–6, pp. 32–41.

Chelpanov, G.I. (1918). Uchebnik psikhologii: Dlya gimnaziy i samoobrazovaniya [Psychology textbook: For gymnasiums and self-education]. Moscow, Petrograd, Kharkov: Dumnov Publ., 224 p.

Cole, M. (1997). Kul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya: nauka buduschego [Cultural psychology: a once and future discipline]. Moscow: Kogito-Tsentr Publ., IP RAS Publ., 432 p.

Dubrovskiy, D.I. (ed.) (2009). Problema soznaniya v filosofii i nauke [The problem of consciousness in philosophy and science]. Moscow: Kanon+ ROOI Reabilitatsiya Publ., 472 p. 

Engels, F. (1961). [Dialectics of nature]. Marks K., Engels F. Sochineniya: v 50 t. [Marx K., Engels F. Works: in 50 vols.]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 20, pp. 339–626.

Fedorovich, E.Yu. and Sokolova, E.E. (2018). [Michael Tomasello versus Alexei N. Leontiev: A dialogue in time]. Кul’turno-istoricheskaya psikhologiya [Cultural-Historical Psychology]. Vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 41–51. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2018140105

Il’enkov, E.V. (1984). Dialekticheskaya logika. Ocherki istorii i teorii [Dialectical logic. Essays on the history and theory]. 2nd ed. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., 320 p.

Il’enkov, E.V. (2002). Shkola dolzhna uchit’ myslit’ [School must learn to think]. Moscow: MPSU Publ., Voronezh: MODEK Publ., 112 p.

Karitskiy, I.N. (2005). [Particular and universal method of psychology]. Trudy Yaroslavskogo metodologicheskogo seminara. T. 3: Metod psikhologii [Proceedings of the Yaroslavl methodological seminar. Vol. 3: The Method of Psychology]. Yaroslavl: IAPS Publ., pp. 111–135.

Kotov, A.A. (2020). [Model of consciousness for computer architectures: The theory of expelled scripts]. Voprosy Psychologii. No. 5, pp. 80–91. 

Lenin, V.I. (1968). [Materialism and Empiriocriticism]. Lenin V.I. Polnoe sobranie sochineniy: v 55 t. [Lenin V.I. Comlete works: in 55 vols.]. Moscow: Politizdat Publ., vol. 18, pp. 7–384.

Leont’ev, A.A. (2001). Deyatel’niy um (Deyatel’nost’, Znak, Lichnost’) [The active mind (Activity, Sign, Personality)]. Moscow: Smysl Publ., 392 p. 

Leont’ev, A.N. (1981). Problemy razvitiya psikhiki [Problems of the development of mind]. 4th ed. Moscow: Moscow University Publ., 584 p. 

Leont’ev, A.N. (2005). Deyatel’nost’. Soznanie. Lichnost’ [Activity. Consciousness. Personality]. Moscow: Smysl Publ.; Akademiya Publ., 352 p.

Loginova, N.A. (2019). [Psychology theorist Leo Vekker]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Sotsiologiya. [Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology]. Iss. 1, pp. 106–115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2019-1-106-115

Lopatin, L.M. (1900). Psikhologiya: Lektsii. 1899–1900 ak..g. [Psychology: Lectures of 1899–1900]. Moscow: Literatura Obschestva Rasprostraneniya Poleznykh Knig Publ., 386 p. 

Mareev, S.N. and Mareeva, E.V. (2003). Istoriya filosofii (obschiy kurs): ucheb. posobie [History of philosophy (General course): A tutorial]. Moscow: Akademicheskiy Proekt Publ., 880 p.

Nauchnyy arkhiv RAO [Scientific archive of RAE] (1948). Coll. 82. Aids 1. Item 102. 

Nauchnyy arkhiv RAO [Scientific Archive of RAE] (1948). Coll. 82. Aids 1. Item 103. 

Sokolova, E.E. (2019). [How A.N. Leontiev revived spinozism in Marxist psychology, or on the implicit philosophical basis of the theory of activity]. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki [Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics]. Vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 654–673. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2019-4-654-673

Sokolova, E.E. (2020). [Some points of the 1948 debate according to the book by A.N. Leontiev «Essay on the development of mind»]. Voprosy Psychologii. No. 5, pp. 109–118.

Sokolova, E.E. and Fedorovich, E.Yu. (2018). [On the significance of the category «sense» in animal psychology: a discussion with E.V. Ilyenkov]. Filosofiya E.V. Il’enkova i sovremennaya psikhologiya, pod red. G.V. Lobastova, E.V. Mareevoy, N.V. Gusevoy [G.V. Lobastov, E.V. Mareeva, N.V. Guseva (eds.) E.V. Ilyenkov’s philosophy and modern psychology]. Ust-Kamenogorsk, pp. 295–304. 

Spinoza, B. (1957). [Ethics]. Spinoza B. Izbrannye proizvedeniya: v 2 t. [Spinoza B. Selected works: in 2 vols.]. Moscow: Gospolitizdat, vol. 1, pp. 359–618.

Surmava, A.V. (2004). [The psychological meaning of the historical crisis (Essay of historical psychoanalysis)]. Voprosy Psychologii. No. 3, pp. 71–85.

Toulmin, S.E. (1981). [Mozart in psychology]. Voprosy Filosofii. No. 10, pp. 127–137. 

Uskova, E.V. (2020). [The status of qualia in naturalistic theories of consciousness]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Sotsiologiya [Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology]. Iss. 2, pp. 192–202. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2020-2-192-202

Velikhov, E.P., Kotov, A.A., Lektorskiy, V.A. and Velichkovskiy, B.M. (2018). [Interdisciplinary Consciousness Research: 30 Years on]. Voprosy Filosofii. No. 12, pp. 5–17. Available at: http://vphil.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2071&Itemid=52 (accessed 21.01.2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/s004287440002578-0

Vvedenskiy, A.I. (1917). Psikhologiya bez vsyakoy metafiziki [Psychology without any metaphysics]. Petrograd: M.M. Stasyulevich Publ., 359 p.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1982). [The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology]. Vygotskiy L.S. Sobranie sochineniy: v 6 t. T. 1: Voprosy teorii i istorii psikhologii [Vygotsky L.S. Collected works: in 6 vols. Vol. 1: Questions of the theory and history of psychology]. Moscow: Pedagogika Publ., pp. 291–436. 

Vygotsky, L.S. (1984). [The teaching about emotions: Historical-psychological studies]. Vygotskiy L.S. Sobranie sochineniy: v 6 t. T. 6: Nauchnoye nasledstvo [Vygotsky L.S. Collected works: in 6 vols. Vol. 6: Scientific legacy]. Moscow: Pedagogika Publ., pp. 91–328. 

Vygotsky, L.S. (2006). [Two excerpts from the notebooks. A psychophysical problem]. Vestnik RGGU. Seriya: Psikhologiya. Pedagogika. Obrazovaniye [RSUH/RGGU Bulletin. «Psychology. Pedagogics. Education»]. No. 1, pp. 294–298.

Yakhot, I. (1981). Podavlenie filosofii v SSSR [The suppression of philosophy in the USSR]. New York: Chalidze Publ., 296 p.

Yanovskiy, M.I. (2015). [Self-observation as a method of psychology]. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Seriya 14: Psikhologiya [Moscow University Psychology Bulletin]. No. 3, pp. 3–21. 

Yaroshevskiy, M.G. (1985). Istoriya psikhologii [History of psychology]. Moscow: Mysl’ Publ., 575 p.

 

Received: 01.02.2022. Accepted: 15.02.2022

For citation:

Sokolova E.E. [Methodological functions of the history of psychology in modern science]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Filosofia. Psihologia. Sociologia [Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology], 2022, issue 1, pp. 25–37 (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.17072/2078-7898/2022-1-25-37