Sections

Background. 75 years passed after the Second World War finished. What do we remember about these years? What are the sources of our memories? What do we know about the life and activity of our teacher in psychology?

The Objective of the paper is to analyze the professional activity of the famous psychologists, future professors of the Moscow State University Psychology Department during the Second World War.

Design. The paper describes the professional activity of famous Russian psychologists (A.R. Luria, A.N. Leontiev, P.Ya. Halperin, A.V. Zaporozhets, B.V. Zeigarnik and others) aimed to rehabilitation of brain damaged Russian soldiers. The value of this work for the development of the psychological science and for the mentality of psychologists all over the world is underlined. 

The work of the remarkable scientists in the rear evacuation recovery hospitals is described: in a hospital organized by A.R. Luria at the sanatorium in the village of Kisegach near the city of Chelyabinsk in the Southern Urals, as well as in the hospital in the village of Kourovka near Sverdlovsk (now Yekaterinburg), whose supervisor was A.N. Leontiev. It is shown how in Kisegach they solved the problems of cognitive impairment in wounded soldiers, and in Kourovka they were engaged in the restoration of motor functions. It is emphasized that, along with enormous practical activity, psychologists conducted significant theoretical work, in which the results of practice were generalized and analyzed.

The paper informs the reader about today’s psychologists around the world and how they appreciate the contribution of Russian psychologists who worked during the World War II and honour their memory. The V International Congress in memory of A.R. Luria, dedicated to the 115th anniversary of the birth and 40th anniversary of the death of Alexander Romanovich Luria.

Conclusion. The knots of memory do not only unite the generations but also become a fulcrum for all of us in understanding the personal sense and value of the Psychological Activity.

Based on the study of rehabilitation processes, Leontyev’s theory of activity and psychological practice proved that the analysis of mental functioning disorders is impossible without a systematic approach to the facts revealed.

Background. The paper contains a revised text of Lev Vygotsky's review of Andrei Bely's novel “Petersburg”. In addition to Vygotsky’s review the paper presents the author’s comment. The review is of particular importance for understanding the biography facts of Lev Vygotsky, the greatest psychologist of the twentieth century.

The Objective is to provide the modern reader with a semantic understanding of both the text of the peer-reviewed novel and a special stage of personal, national and religious self-determination of Lev Vygotsky, the outstanding psychologist of the twentieth century.

Design. When working on the comment, traditional historical and philological methods of text analysis and reading techniques were used to identify the hidden and implicit citations contained in Vygotsky's review from a number of interpretation angles. One of them concerns the artistic features of the novel associated with the distinctive aesthetics of symbolism. Another perspective is connected with the religious and philosophical issues that determine the ideological position of Andrey Bely. The third one concerns a wide range of issues related to anti-Semitism issues.

Results. We sought to give the reader an opportunity to feel the urgency of the political situation and ideology in the Russian intelligentsia of the period when the novel was created and the review was written. We tried to devote particular attention to the aspects of a psychological phenomena (e.g. consciousness, semantic understanding) and those methodological principles that Vygotsky would later use in his own psychological research.

Findings.The analysis of Vygotsky's review carried out in the paper will help clarify the authenticity of the cultural-historical approach of Vygotsky as psychologist. Keywords:symbolism, artistic features of the text, anti-Semiteism, Sionism, consciousness, self-determination.

On January 27-28, 2017, the 2nd All-Russian Conference «The way to success: programs to support gifted children and youth in the context of scientific and technological development of the Russian Federation» was held in the Sirius Educational Centre (Sochi, Russia)

February 20-22, 2018 the 6th ASEAN Regional Congress of Psychological Associatons was held in Kuta (Indonesia)

From 5 to 7 September in Kazan (Volga) Federal University held two major events the psychological community. Within All-Russian forum of psychological events to be held VI Congress of the Russian psychological society (RPO).

18 October 2017 staff of the faculty of psychology of Moscow state University named M. V. Lomonosov took part in the XIX world festival of youth and students.

The paper is dedicated to the 115th birthday of P.Ya.Galperin, the classic of national psychology (1902-2017). The purpose of the paper is to showP.Ya.Galperin’s contribution to fundamental and practiceoriented science, and alsoto revealthe link between these two approaches sides in his scientific heritage. The gist of his innovative psychological theory is disclosed. The key methodological principlesare highlighted: understanding of the scope and method of psychological science; psychophysical issue, i.e. the nature of psyche and the mental world; a psychophysiological problem, the issue of the relationship between psychology and physiology; the issue of human instincts in connection with historical social nature of consciousness; the notion of linguistic consciousness and the relation of language and thought; the principle of unity of history and theory in scientific knowledge. Terminological work carried out by P. Ya.Galperin is analyzed. The introduction of new concepts enriches and makes the conceptual apparatus of psychological sciencemore precise. The necessity to reveal each methodological provision to solve practical problemsis mentioned. The unity of theoretical and practical aspects in psychological theory developed by P. Ya. Galperin, its authentic nature and relation to the culturalhistorical psychology of L.S.Vygotsky, activity concepts of S.L. Rubinstein and A.N. Leontiev are shown. There are several directions in which the method of gradual development of mental functions and concepts organizes the process of teaching and learning, the mechanisms of perceptionand simultaneous mental processes, the phenomena of Jean Piaget are explained. To sum up, the inexhaustible possibilities of the practical use of the theory of P.Ya. Galperin in all areas of individual experience.

The paper contains the description of Pyotr Ya. Galperin’s scientific biography stages. P.Ya. Galperin (1902–1988) is an outstanding Russian psychologist, the founder of an original psychological concept. The paper shows how P.Ya. Galperin’s scientific views were logically developing when he was working on the theory of gradual development of human intellectual activity that analyzes the process of constructing basic components of mental activity and creates the conditions for transforming the action into a psychological phenomenon.

The biography is compiled on the basis of publications and talks of P.Ya. Galperin, the memories of colleagues and friends, using numerous archives. By now, only the main events in the life of a scientist have been marked. The paper presents the data that could be verified by referring to P.Yа. Galperin’s CV and data of the Academic Council of the Faculty of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, stored in the Archive of Lomonosov Moscow State University, and P.Yа. Galperin’s science archive passed by the grandson Yakov I. Abramson to the Archive of the Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The family archives failed to survive because of the frequent relocation, and P.Ya. Galperin did not write a detailed autobiography, so the task of clarifying the facts of his biography is relevant.

All periods of P.Ya. Galperin’s scientific creative life are presented, his participation in scientific and practical events starting with the mid-1920s is mentioned. The 1930- 1940s are the most difficult years for event recovery. 55 years of professional and personal life (from 1943 and until his death in 1988) are associated with Lomonosov Moscow State University, therefore the focus is on P.Ya. Galperin as an outstanding Professor of Moscow University, i.e. the author of the original theory of the orientating nature and function of human mind, the organizing force in psychology. 

The conclusion highlights how the modern scholars are preserving the scientific heritage of P.Ya. Galperin.

Celebrating the 115th anniversary birth of P.Ya. Galperin, an outstanding Russian scientist, and paying tribute to his contribution in general psychology, genetic psychology and teacher-training psychology, it is necessary to emphasize Galperin’s unique approach to the essence of mental phenomena and processes, to the mechanisms and development that reverberate the internal integrity and systemic approach. There are at least, three main directions of P.Ya. Galperin’s concept, i.e. his system of psychology. The first direction is the method of gradual development of intellectual activity for studying human mental activity. The second direction is the study of the theoretically described and actually implemented process of gradual development of intellectual activity as a psychological reality. The third direction is the gradual development of intellectual activity in the practice of teaching.

This paper is devoted to the strategic issues of implementing gradual development of intellectual activity. The significance of these assumptions for practical training, not in a laboratory experiment, but in the mass version, paradoxically requires a far deeper and broader understanding of mechanisms of the human mental activity than academic laboratory research. The reasons for the relatively limited use of Galperin’s theory are considered in the practice of training. Further development of psychology along the path outlined by P.Ya. Galperin aimed at enhancing practical capabilities of the theoretical approach is being highlighted.

July 1–14, 2017 Amsterdam, Holland, the 16th European Congress of Psychology (ECP2019) to be held in Moscow, Russia, on July 2–5, 2019, is presented within the 15th European Congress of Psychology (ECP2017)

June 29–July 3, 2017 the Department of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, holds an International Student Scientific Practical Conference, Summer School of the Department of Psychology (LShP MSU- 2017)

May 11, 2017 two important documents aimed at strengthening international cooperation and raising the status of Russian psychology are signed in Lomonosov Moscow State University

In his work, the author compares and analyzes such concepts as human, person, personality, entity, individual, and self. He considers the views of major philosophers and psychologists of the past on these concepts. There are ideas of P. Florensky, A. Losev, G. Shpet, L. Rubinstein, L .Bozhovich, A .Leontiev, S. Freud and other scientists writing on the content, functions, origin and value of the psychological phenomena mentioned above. The views of a person, individual, and Self have undergone dramatic changes over time. Russian philosophers wrote about the impossibility to define the individual, they considered it a myth, miracle, mystery, and at the same time limit of self-construction or self-creation. Russian psychologists dropped the concept of individual below the concept of personality, and even equated with the subject. In addition, for a while the identity was considered a product of the collective. The notion of Self is considered in a similar way. It is either identified with the subject or object, or it is said to propagate using vegetative means, or like the individual may manifest properties of a soluble substance. However, the Self is recognized to be characterized by generating creative abilities and functions. Psychoanalysts first considered Self as a mental institution, then as a main authority or substructure of personality. S.Freud builds a topology of the following structure: Ego, Super-Ego, Id, each of them performing their own functions and keeping their own energy. S. Freud spoke about the historical implications of mental acts. Considerable attention is paid to the origin of Self. The development of the Self does not occur automatically, and there are concepts put forward by the psychoanalysts and psychologists.

The author emphasizes that the paper compares psychological approaches to personality and psychoanalytic approaches to the Self. In psychology, we are dealing with a person (a person?) without Self. In psychoanalysis, we are dealing with Self, but without personality. Both psychologists and psychoanalysts tend to reduce the Self to the individual, subject, representative, or mere body.

In 2016, the scientific and pedagogical community from different countries is celebrating the 120th anniversary of the birth of L. S. Vygotsky, an outstanding humanist, the Russian scientist who made an enormous contribution to the development of the socialization of man in nature, culture and society.

A meeting of Chinese Psychological Society was held on October 14-16 in Sian (China). It united more than 3000 participants: Chinese scientists as well as representatives of UNESCO International Union of Psychological Science and Russian, Indian, Pakistani, Mongolian and American Psychological Societies.

The Meeting outcomes included agreements on joint scientific events and research projects of Chinese and Russian Psychological Societies. It might be a step towards establishment of Euroasian alliance in psychological science.

The interview reveals the contribution of Lev Vygotsky in science and education, his main scientific achievements being drawn particular attention to. His innovative concepts in pedagogy and psychology are far ahead of time and are relevant up today. Lev Vygotsky put forward ideas that disclosed the principles of cultural development of human individual, his/her mental functions (speech, attention, thinking), and explained the internal mental processes of the child, their relationship with the environment. Lev Vygotsky introduced a number of terms and concepts that are the basis of modern psychology and pedagogy. Among them there are «higher mental functions», «interiorization», «mediation», «signification», etc.

There extraordinary versatility Lev Vygotsky is emphasized in the paper. He is known not only as a psychologist, but also as a philosopher, methodologist, teacher, therapist, and even as the author of the brilliant theater and literary reviews. There are also facts about Vygotsky’s scientific path and his biography.

The importance of Vygotsky’s ideas in the development of the educational process is highlighted. The scientist laid the most important principles of the child education. Such concepts developed by him as «zone of proximal development», «social situation of development», «critical age», «sensitive periods in the child development» are still successfully used by leading psychologists and educators. He made a huge contribution to the development of ideas about the origin and development of speech, its role in the development of thinking.

The whole galaxy of prominent scientists were raised under the influence of Vygotsky. Closest students and colleagues were the author of the activity theory A.N. Leontyev, the world-renowned neuropsychologist A.R. Luria, the author of the concept of the child’s mental development D.B. El’konin, the author of the theory of stage development of mental activity P.Ya. Galperin.

Lev Vygotsky is famous on the international scale: his works are translated into 19 languages. Research centers and institutes based on the approach of Vygotsky and developing his ideas exist today in many countries, e.g. in France, Portugal, Brazil, Angola. Seminars, conferences and congresses in different parts of the world are devoted to his ideas scientific.

The author emphasizes the increasing role of psychology in the life of modern society, entering into the social life in a variety of forms. Psychology is a truly «effective» science of studying a person. The most significant achievements of modern psychology are considered: the development of practical educational psychology, the creation of system activity approach to cognition, the occurrence of psychology in the world of cognitive science, psychology of emergencies, etc. Psychology has become a reality and its various areas are treated as «the architect» of mental and economic life throughout the world, including Russia, psychology turns into a efficient reconstructing science that can be observed not only in the construction program standards of modern education, but also in the programs of tolerance development in the society as a support of diversity standards.

Considerable attention is paid to the activities of the Department of Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, as a center of psychological science with all its increasing diversity and development. On the eve of the 50th anniversary of the Department of Psychology, A.G. Asmolov, whose life was closely connected with the educational and research center, examines successes and accomplishments of the Department, contribution to the world of psychology.

A.G. Asmolov lists the names of the most outstanding graduates of the Department who have achieved impressive results in various branches of psychology and are now in different parts of the Russian Federation and of the world working in the sphere of psychology. The Department is said to be a «trendsetter» in psychology. Such interesting areas as psychology of uncertainty, psychology of complexity, psychology of diversity, etc. are being developed. The ideas that emerge at the Department of psychology are becoming the ideas known in the whole world.

This paper is based upon the ideas of the psychological school of L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev and A. R. Luria and presents a critical analysis of currently popular and allegedly successful projects of teaching human language to apes. The paper shows that the authors of such studies and their promoters ignore qualitative differences between psychological mechanisms of human and animal communication, as well as their functions in behavioral regulation of both. This is explained, in particular, by the fact that the human-animal comparison originates from some visible and functional similarities of certain aspects of their communicative behavior. Moreover, the observed differences are recognized as quantitative distinctions, but not qualitative ones. In this paper a critical analysis of data submitted by such projects is presented. The outcome is as follows. Though apes, especially in vitro, can use some symbolic means (language symbols) to manipulate the behavior of others, none of the animals, subjected to such experiments have acquired an ability to control themselves in the context of certain social (conventional) requirements. Meanwhile, according to L. S. Vygotsky, the arbitrary regulation of one’s own behavior with the use of symbolic means as «psychological tools» is what determines a human as a being, qualitatively different from an animal. Moreover, this arbitrary regulation has emerged in the course of historical development through human labor (common, socially-induced and tool-mediated) activity.

Hence, the conclusion is that if the most important features of human language (its use on the way of mastering one’s own behavior and regulating one’s own mental processes) is ignored, this leads to inadequate interpretation of the data collected in animal behavior studies, as well as to biological reductionism of human activity explanation.

The paper presented texts of the three previously unknown Lvygotsky’s journal notes and comments on them. These texts were published in mid-July and early September 1917 in the Jewish weekly «New Path» under the pseudonym «L.S.» and «W». In these texts, Lev Vygotsky describes the features of the political behaviour of the Jewish population in connection with the revolutionary events in Russia. On the one hand, a clear discrepancy between the activation of party work and political rhetoric is mentioned, and on the other hand, reduction of the significance of Jewish communal life is highlighted. As a key characteristic of social and psychological wellbeing of the Jewish population Vygotsky singles out absenteeism, i.e. the lack of interest in politics. Eventually the scientist captures the increase in uncertainty in the Jewish environment and fear of the future political, social and economic reforms in Russia. In the comments on Vygotsky notes, there are definitions relating to the various features of the activities of the Jewish political parties and public organizations, information about various policy documents and staff characterized by social and political situation before the elections in the Consituent Assembly (Uchreditel’noe Sobranie). Particular attention is paid to the analysis of stylistic and structural features of the commented text construction. By implicit quoting the relationship between Vygotsky’s texts and the works of other authors is identified.

Particular attention is paid to the author’s attitude to religious texts, which allows to select a characteristic feature of the «double vision» of real events of the revolution against the background of the Jewish history. The comments help to single out features of the political identity of the young Lev Vygotsky in the period between the two revolutions, which is important to study his biography and understanding of his world view.

The paper is an attempt to summarize the interaction of the two largest schools of psychology in Russia: the psychological schools of Moscow and St. Petersburg. The paper is a sketch dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the psychological faculties of Moscow and St. Petersburg, and should not be appreciated as a historical treatise. Tense ties between the psychological schools, that originate in the distant past, have gone through different historical stages. Slavophilevs Westernizer traditions affected the initial difference in these schoolsemerging into the opposition: either the human being is studied entirety with his/her vast subjective experience, but losing the reliability of our statements (peculiarity of Moscow school), or we study the human being accurately using objective methods, but losing the integrity of our ideas (peculiarity of St.-Petersburg school). Both psychological schools, having gone through the ups and downs, have retained their identity and their emphasis on research. Moscow scholars in their studies are aimed to larger issues and still rely on large-scale Vygotsky-Leontiev approach. Scholars of St.-Petersburgtouch upon more specific issues using empirical methods, but still continue with nostalgia and hope making plans about creating a common concept of human individual according to Ananiev. Nowadays between the two schools there is no opposition, but only one mutual love.