Elena E. Sokolova

Among the most actively discussed issues in the
contemporary literature on the methodology of
psychology is the problem of integration of
psychological knowledge. Two approaches towards its
solution have emerged: (i) eclectic merging of concepts
and theories developed within various scientific
schools into a «network»; (ii) a way proposed by Lev
Vygotsky long ago, but yet not fully implemented: a
dialectical synthesis of different positions into a new
system. Apparently, such a synthesis does not suggests
a simple summation of various viewpoints, but rather
their sublation (Aufhebung), i.e. fundamental revision
and incorporation into a qualitatively new whole. This
paper aims at demonstrating how this approach has
been successfully implemented in dialectical
psychology developed by the L.S.VygotskyA.N.Leontiev-A.R.Luria school by way of solution of
certain fundamental problems of the science of
psychology.

Long ago in the psychology of consciousness
(introspectively understood) two alternative schools
emerged: structuralism and functionalism. In the
theories proposed, both schools managed to specify
two fundamental aspects of consciousness:
representational (structuralism) and processual
(functionalism). Just as structuralism treated
consciousness as a constellation of sensations,
representations, etc., functionalism interpreted it as a
subject's activity, as a unity of intentional acts or
functions, and so forth. The L.S.VygotskyA.N.Leontiev-A.R.Luria school inventively revised
these two viewpoints with due consideration of the
achievements of both approaches rather than merging
them eclectically. Furthermore, the very
conceptualization of the nature of consciousness and
human mind as a whole had been cardinally
transformed.

The mind was not considered an isolated and self-contained world of
mental phenomena (representations or processes) any more. Henseforth it
was treated as a “functional organ” of human activity, initially material
and practical. The responsibilities of such a functional organ are the
subject's orienting in the world, construction of the world's image (model)
as a result of orienting and regulation of the subject's activity on the basis
of the constructed model of the world. Accordingly, the mind is again
considered as a unity of process (which is always an activity) and
representation. However, in the doctrine proposed in the L.S.VygotskyA.N.Leontiev-A.R.Luria school this unity is pretty much specified:
genetically (in terms of the origin) the process “forestalls” representation
and determines its features; on the contrary, functionally (in terms of
actualgenesis) the representation precedes the subject's current activity
and therefore foreruns consciousness (mind) as a process. Thus, for
representatives of this school the main opposition in psychology is not
the opposition of consciousness and activity, but rather the opposition of
“representation” and “process”. This point is emphasized in many A.N.
Leontiev's works where he repeatedly described the representation as
containing the whole process in it, i.e. the subject's past experience of
interaction with the world (in recent decades, this idea has been
elaborated by Vladimir Zinchenko). In this respect, the process is always
more revolutionary, as it develops on the basis of the current conditions
of interaction. However, the more “conservative” representation is also
necessary to secure interaction under repeating circumstances.

Similar ideas have been proposed in cognitive
psychology, e.g. by Ulric Neisser, who pointed
out the urge of treating perception as an active
and constructive process guided by schemata
which in turn are being continuously modified
by the stream of incoming information
obtained in the subject's interaction with the
environment. And still it should be noted that
such ideas emerged in the L.S.VygotskyA.N.Leontiev-A.R.Luria school as early as in
the 1930-es. Moreover, understanding of the
very process of “interaction” proposed in this
school substantially differs from cognitive
psychology (although this issue requires
separate in-depth analysis).

In the present-day psychology, there is an
opposition of approaches characteristic of
natural sciences and humanities. In the
conceptual framework of the school in
question, there was basically no such
dichotomy. As far back as in an early paper
devoted to the historical meaning of the crisis
in psychology Lev Vygotsky, when discussing
the necessity of development of “scientific
psychology”, never meant the simplified
understanding of “scientific” characteristic of
the present-day psychology. For him, it was a
synonym of “academic”. That is why he
considered Marx's theory of social
development a “scientific” one.

Later A.N. Leontiev, when discussing the need of bridging
the gap between nomothetic and idiographic approaches
(adopted by psychologists oriented towards natural sciences
and humanities, respectively), resorted to the category of
personality and proposed to introduce a concept of deed as
a unit of analysis. Of course, as a free and responsible
manifestation of personality, the deed deserves
investigation in terms of the state-of-the-art studies of selfdetermination and personality choice in humanities.
However, we should also keep in mind other “levels” of
analysis of a deed, which could be explored within the wellknown framework of the structure of activity (separate
activity, action, operation) down to the level of
psychophysiological functions. The latter, studied by
researchers oriented towards natural sciences, also
contribute to the realization of the deed. Therefore, the
integrity of investigation of the deed as a multilevel unity is
achieved due to the integrity of the structure of human
activity, thus challenging the dichotomy of approaches
oriented towards natural sciences and humanities.

There is one more dichotomy – a study of an individual within
either “subject-object” or “subject-subject” relations – which has
lately been sublated by cultural and activity psychology in the
doctrine of the impossibility of subject-to-subject communication
and interaction devoid of an object as well as of the impossibility
of activity as a subject-to-object relation not mediated by another
subject. The specific implementation of this idea as applied to
child development had been proposed by Daniil Elkonin. In his
opinion, a child is never face to face with an object, but rather sees
this object as viewed by an adult and is guided by a model of
action with the object, proposed by the adult. The latter action is
always performed either together with the adult or as an
accomplishment of the adult's commission. Likewise, the
interaction with another person is always object-mediated.
However, at each stage of human ontogeny, subject-subject and
subject-object relationships are represented in a qualitatively
distinctive combination. There are stages (for the European
culture, these are infancy, preschool childhood and adolescence)
when mainly modes of communication and interaction with other
people develop, whereas during early childhood, primary school
age and juvenescence mostly object-related actions are formed and
trained.

Dialectical method of construction of a new
holistic system making allowances for the
achievements of various positions to be
included in it as revised components has also
been applied by Alexander Luria in the area of
neuropsychology. Luria's doctrine of systemic
dynamic localization of higher mental
functions in the human brain is based on the
dialectical “sublation” of two alternative
approaches towards the localization problem:
“narrow localizationalism” and
“antilocalizationalism”.

Thus, in the dialectical psychology proposed
by the L.S.Vygotsky-A.N.Leontiev-A.R.Luria
school for the solution of certain fundamental
problems of psychology, the principles of a
concrete research methodology have been
realized, which, if appropriately developed,
could become an instrument of the further
integration of psychological knowledge into a
unitary holistic system. This means that
theoretical achievements of the school in
question do not only belong to the history of
psychology, but require special exploration and
implementation in the development of a new
system of psychological knowledge.