Author Sergey Stepanov. Source — psy.1september.ru
From today’s point of view, Russian psychology of the past century appears to be very vulnerable to criticism due to its political bias, ideological blindness, and, as an inevitable consequence of this, theoretical one-sidedness and intolerance towards alternative trends. Such accusations are to a large extent justified. Indeed, in the writings of titled Soviet psychologists (and some were not published: the right to publish had to be earned by many years of loyalty), one often encounters maxims that resemble more ritual spells than scientific judgments. It got to the point that in modern reprints, editors, in the spirit of the old censorship, cut out the most odious passages from the works of the Soviet era. And in the minds of many psychologists of the new generation, the idea of the entire Soviet psychological science as something deeply flawed and not worth a good word was established. At the same time, as Vygotsky used to say, the child is thrown out along with the dirty water, that is, they turn away from the truly valuable and positive achievements of past years. Eric Berne, now revered by many, wrote: «If you take away the high words and solemn mine, there is still a lot left, so don’t be alarmed.» Let us follow his advice and try to soberly and unbiasedly consider one of the elements of the heritage of Soviet psychology — the so-called activity approach. Despite the ideological upheaval (one wants to say — a somersault) of recent years, many people still talk about the activity approach, or rather, they sentence it to the right place and out of place, sometimes without even realizing what it is about. Let’s try to understand this subject.
The scientific credo of several generations of Soviet psychologists, at least in Moscow (it was in the capital that the most influential psychological school in our country was formed), can be expressed in the words of V.V. of them, it should be initial, first and main. In fact, this determines the essence of the activity approach — the consideration of any mental phenomenon and process in its formation and functioning through the prism of the category of activity. The basis of this approach is, of course, the general psychological theory of activity, and the approach itself is an application of this theory to the study and formation of mental processes and properties. The activity approach is inherently universal, since it covers the widest range of cognitive processes and personal qualities, applicable to the interpretation of their formation and functioning in normal and pathological conditions, and is effectively embodied in all particular areas of psychological science and practice.
Since the basis of the activity approach, which is embodied in various fields (in particular, in education, which will be discussed in particular), is the general psychological theory of activity, it should be noted that this theory itself is debatable. Supporters of the activity approach do not represent a monolithic cohort, but rather two camps that manage to ally and compete at the same time. The psychological theory of activity was developed almost independently by S. L. ueshtein and A. N. Leontiev. Their interpretations are largely similar, but they also have significant differences, which their followers sometimes emphasize beyond measure. At the same time, not very correct methods are sometimes introduced into scientific controversy. ueshtein, who experienced many unfair persecutions in his lifetime, is opposed to Leontiev, who was not only a prolific scientist, but also a successful administrator.
Other followers of U.E.shtein pathos expose Leontiev as his persecutor. Their opponents refute this with no less pathos. The arguments of the parties are not without interest for the historian of science, but add little to our understanding of the activity approach. Therefore, we will focus on the actual scientific side of the issue.
There is a different dating of the emergence of the activity approach, associated with different points of view on the authorship of the theory of activity. Some researchers, for example, A. V. Brushlinsky, believe that the principle of activity was formulated by u.e. -s the «inactive approach», represented, in particular, by the school of Vygotsky, dominated. Other authors, on the contrary, believe that the works of Vygotsky in the 1922s-20s were of fundamental importance for the development of the concept of activity, and in parallel there was another process of introducing the category of activity into psychology in the works of u.e. .shtein, starting in 30. And the research of M. G. Yaroshevsky established that M. Ya. Basov was the first to introduce the concept of activity into the development of psychological problems. True, Leontiev believed that, unlike Vygotsky, who did not use the term «activity», but in fact his concept was «activity» — Basov used this very term, but he did not put a psychological content into it.
Regardless of the dispute about priorities, it must be pointed out that the basis of the psychological theory of activity is the postulate of Marxist dialectical-materialist philosophy that it is not consciousness that determines being, activity, but, on the contrary, being, human activity determines his consciousness. On the basis of this position, ueshtein in the 30s. the principle of the unity of consciousness and activity, fundamental for Soviet psychology, was formulated. “Forming in activity, the psyche, consciousness manifests itself in activity. Activity and consciousness are not two aspects turned in different directions. They form an organic whole, not an identity, but a unity.” At the same time, both consciousness and activity are understood by U.E.shtein differently than in the introspective and behavioral traditions. Activity is not a set of reflex and impulsive reactions to external stimuli, since it is regulated by consciousness and reveals it. At the same time, consciousness is considered as a reality that is not given to the subject directly, in his self-observation: it can be known only through a system of subjective relations, including through the activity of the subject, in the process of which consciousness is formed and develops.
This principle was developed empirically in both variants of the activity approach, however, there were differences between them in understanding this unity. Leontiev believed that U.E.shtein’s solution to the problem of the unity of consciousness and activity does not go beyond the old dichotomy of the mental, which he himself criticized, understood as “phenomena” and experience, and activity, understood as external activity, and in this sense, such unity is only declared. Leontiev proposed a different solution to the problem: the psyche, consciousness “live” in the activity that makes up their “substance”, the image is an “accumulated movement”, that is, folded actions that were at first completely expanded and “external” … That is, consciousness does not just “appear and is formed” in activity as a separate reality — it is “embedded” in activity and inseparable from it.
The differences between the two variants of the activity approach were clearly formulated in the 40s and 50s. and mainly touches on two issues.
First, it is a problem of the subject matter of psychological science. From the point of view of u.e.shtein, psychology should study not the activity of the subject as such, but “the psyche and only the psyche”, however, through the disclosure of its essential objective connections, including through the study of activity. Leontiev, on the contrary, believed that activity should inevitably be included in the subject of psychology, since the psyche is inseparable from the moments of activity that generate and mediate it, moreover: it is itself a form of objective activity (according to P. Ya. Galperin, orienting activity).
Secondly, the disputes concerned the relationship between external practical activity and consciousness. According to W.E.shtein, it is impossible to talk about the formation of «internal» mental activity from «external», practical, through internalization: before any internalization, the internal (mental) plan is already present. Leontiev, on the other hand, believed that the inner plan of consciousness is formed precisely in the process of interiorization of initially practical actions that connect a person with the world of human objects.
Concrete-empirical developments of the principle of the unity of consciousness and activity in the activity approach (with all the differences in its theoretical understanding) can be divided into six groups.
- In phylogenetic studies, the problem of the emergence of mental reflection in evolution and the identification of stages in the mental development of animals depending on their activity was developed (A. N. Leontiev, A. V. Zaporozhets, K. E. Fabry, etc.).
- In anthropological studies, the problem of the emergence of consciousness in the process of human labor activity (U.E.shtein, Leontiev), psychological differences between the tools of labor in humans and auxiliary means of activity in animals (Galperin) was considered in a concrete psychological plan.
- Sociogenetic studies examine the differences in the relationship between activity and consciousness under the conditions of different historical epochs and different cultures (Leontiev, A. R. Luria, M. Cole, and others). True, the problems of the sociogenesis of consciousness within the framework of the activity approach are outlined rather than developed.
- From the most numerous ontogenetic studies in line with the activity approach, independent activity-oriented theories have grown — the theory of periodization of mental development in ontogenesis by D. B. Elkonin, the theory of developmental learning by V. V. Davydova, the theory of the formation of perceptual actions by A. V. Zaporozhets, etc.
- Functional genetic studies based on the principle of the unity of consciousness and activity (development of mental processes in short time periods) are represented not only by the scientists of the schools of Leontiev and U.E. Ananiev, A. A. Smirnov, N. A. Bernshtein, etc.).
- Patho- and neuropsychological studies of the role of specific forms of activity in the development and correction of the decay of higher mental functions (Luriya, E. D. Khomskaya, L. S. Tsvetkova, B. V. Zeigarnik, etc.).
The activity approach has been most intensively developed and at the same time most productively used in such an area as education. And here the advantage clearly belongs to the followers of the Leontiev school. And this is no coincidence. The path of psychological research in the learning process is organically linked with the main idea of Leontiev’s concept, according to which the development of human consciousness is understood as learning in its specifically human forms, that is, in the conditions of the transfer of socio-historical experience from person to person. In one of his programmatic works, Leontiev recognized “it is absolutely necessary to resolutely change the organization of scientific work in such sections of psychology as pedagogical psychology, which requires that the school become the main place of work for the psychologist, his clinic. The psychologist should not be a guest and observer at the school, but an active participant in the pedagogical process; it is necessary that he not only understand, but be able to practically lead it.
Starting from the 30s, in a number of publications, based on theoretical and experimental studies, Leontiev associated the solution of pedagogical problems with reliance on knowledge about the age and individual characteristics of children, recognizing that “without reliance on systematic data characterizing the development of the child’s psyche, it is impossible to create evidence-based psychology and pedagogy”, and vice versa: the development of theory is inseparable from specific psychological and pedagogical research in the real practice of education. The question of the regularities and driving forces of the child’s mental development and the connection between development and learning was put at the center. In an article of 1935, after a critical analysis of the ideas that existed in world psychology about the psychological process of mastering the concept by a child, Leontiev comes to the conclusion that they are untenable and outlines his own new understanding of this process. Based on Vygotsky’s research, which established the important role of communication and cooperation as necessary conditions for learning, already in this article Leontiev raised the question of the content of the process of mastering a scientific concept: although it “takes place in the process of communication,” it is not reduced to communication. “What lies behind the communication in which the transmission of a scientific concept to the student is carried out?” asks Leontiev. And he answers: “Behind communication lies the activity of the student organized in this process.” It is necessary to build a system of psychological operations corresponding to the generalization contained in the content of the scientific concept.
Based on the theoretical and experimental studies of the team of psychologists headed by Leontiev at the All-Ukrainian Psychoneurological Academy in Kharkov (Zaporozhets, Bozhovich, Halperin, etc.), the main idea in the activity approach was outlined about the central importance of activity in the formation of consciousness in the learning process. The understanding of learning as an active activity process that determines the development of consciousness and is carried out in conditions of communication with other people was a prerequisite for determining the subject of pedagogical psychology. According to Leontiev, the content of pedagogical psychology as an independent field of psychological science is «research of the psychological activity of the child in the process of upbringing and education, and at the same time, the study of not all of his psychological activity, but only that which is specific to this process.»
On the basis of research in the field of educational psychology, an understanding of the patterns and driving forces of the development of the psyche in ontogenesis developed. In contrast to the ideas widespread in world psychology about spiritual development as coming exclusively from within, so that only the content of consciousness changes in the process of learning, “the very activity of consciousness and its structure remain unchanged, obey the same laws given once and for all,” it was argued. another understanding, first developed by Vygotsky. In the process of learning, there is a «decisive change in the very consciousness of the student … all his mental activity is rebuilt and developed.» It was emphasized that the role of the teacher in this process is great: he sets the very content of the process that is to be mastered. A learning child is not like Robinson making his little discoveries: «… the pedagogical process does not just use the ready-made psychological capabilities inherent in a child of a particular age, and does not just bring this or that content into his consciousness, but creates new features of his consciousness.»
Leontiev proceeded from the position that the scientific study of the development of the psyche has not only theoretical significance. At the same time, the solution of the question of the patterns of mental development determines the direction of the development of scientifically based methods of teaching and educating children. In accordance with the theoretical thesis about the significance of activity in the mental development of a child, «… the formation and development of individual mental processes do not occur in the order of maturation, but in the course of the development of a specific activity in connection with the development of its psychological structure, its orientation and the motives that motivate it.» Hence the requirement: «In the study of the development of the child’s psyche, one should proceed from an analysis of the development of his activity as it develops in the given specific conditions of his life.»
Qualitatively unique stages in the child’s mental development were described and the transitions between them were studied. At the same time, at different stages of development, there occurs, firstly, a change in the place occupied by the child in the system of social relations; secondly, each stage is characterized by a certain leading attitude of the child to reality at this stage, the leading type of activity. This concept, introduced by Leontiev, was the basis for the periodization of mental development in ontogeny from infancy to adolescence; a conclusion was made about the developmental effect of the leading activity, which determines «the most important changes in the mental processes and psychological characteristics of the child’s personality at a given stage of his development.»
On the question of the relationship between education and development, Leontiev, following Vygotsky, supports the position on the leading role of education and upbringing: the child develops while learning. However, these processes are not identical. The relationship between them is not unambiguous. It is argued that «any development is a special process of self-movement, that is, it has a spontaneous character, which is characterized by internal laws.» Thus, the specificity of the age and individual characteristics of children is recognized and the need to study them remains. How, with this understanding, does the mechanism of the influence of training on development appear? This influence is exercised through the management of the activity of the child himself. “Pedagogical influence brings to life the child’s activity aimed at certain educational tasks, builds it and manages it, and only as a result of the directed activity of the child himself does he acquire knowledge, skills and abilities.” The emphasis on the child’s own activity turns it into a central psychological problem of learning.
The most important provisions of Leontiev’s doctrine of activity—the questions of the structure of activity, the distinction between activity and action, which are connected with the concrete psychological study of the semantic analysis of consciousness and the practice of cultivating a conscious attitude, that is, the consciousness of learning—were developed in application to practical questions of teaching. In accordance with this, the child is also considered «not only as an object of external influences … but, first of all, as a subject of life, a subject of development.»
Applying the concepts and principles of the activity approach to the question of the methods of psychological diagnosis of underachieving schoolchildren, Leontiev restores the very problem of diagnosis and the method of tests, which were banned after the 1936 decree «On pedological perversions …». Without denying the significance of the test method, Leontiev establishes the limits of its application and concludes that the use of tests does not make it possible to identify the reasons underlying the child’s lagging behind. Therefore, in order to study the nature of the retardation, it is necessary to conduct a clinical psychological study following the test examinations, in the course of which the features of the structure of the students’ cognitive activity are revealed. Further study of the mental development of the child for prognostic purposes should be built in the form of a teaching experiment.
Assessing the role of mental actions in the process of assimilation of concepts, Leontiev called the process of their formation in students “the central psychological problem of human learning. In its broadest aspect, this is one of the main problems of genetic psychology — the problem of transforming external actions into internal mental processes, the problem of their internalization.
The analysis of objective and mental actions, as well as the operations included in these actions, became the subject of research by Leontiev’s comrade-in-arms in the activity school, P. Ya. Galperin. The concept of the systematic phased formation of mental actions and concepts, created by Galperin, was confirmed and found effective application in the practice of schooling, as well as other forms of education.
In parallel with these studies in Moscow under the guidance of representatives of the activity approach D. B. Elkonin and V. V. Davydov, and in Kharkov — V. V. Repkin, starting from the 50s. theoretical and experimental research on the study of the educational activity of younger schoolchildren unfolded on a broad front. On their basis, a theory of developmental learning was developed, on the basis of which, since the beginning of the 90s. One of the three state educational systems currently operating in Russia has been introduced.
Based on the task of ensuring the development (primarily mental) of children in the process of learning activities, as well as relying on Vygotsky’s ideas about the leading importance for mental development of the content of acquired knowledge, a conclusion was made that was fundamentally at odds with the established practice of teaching in elementary school. Already in elementary school, the content of educational activity should be directed to the assimilation of theoretical knowledge as a system of scientific concepts, the mastery of which develops in students the foundations of theoretical thinking and consciousness. In a situation where the content of education consists of empirical concepts and knowledge, for their assimilation, the child has the necessary processes of memory and thinking that have developed before schooling. Therefore, the acquisition of this knowledge does not lead to an increase in mental strength and abilities. In contrast, theoretical concepts, in order to be learned, require the development of new forms of thinking. The position on two types of thinking is deeply developed in the works of VV Davydov. The focus of educational activities in the practice of developmental education on the assimilation of theoretical knowledge opens up real ways for the development of thinking and personality.
Thus, the theory of learning activity makes it possible to reveal the educational functions and the upbringing role of systematic schooling. Its implementation in the practice of teaching opens up real ways to humanize learning, because its goal is not only proclaimed, but actually ensured the development of cognitive motives, thinking, consciousness, personality of the child. The project of education developed on its basis is convincing evidence of the promising nature of the activity approach, a kind of test of its correctness and validity in the most important area of social practice — education.