Dear colleagues, here is the regular issue of the “National Psychological Journal”.

The year of 2013 was a landmark in many ways not only for scholars of psychology, but also for the Russian science in general.

Stages and the historical lessons of the Psychological Society work, based at the Imperial Moscow University in 1885 are marked out. Activity of Society is seen as significant milestone in the development of science and education at Moscow University, as well as across national psychological thought in general.

One of the chapters from the book “Way of thinking: the problem of the historical unity of scientific knowledge” by V.P. Zinchenko (edited by T.G. Shchedrina), published in 2011 is presented. V.P. Zinchenko describes his outstanding teachers, especially about P.Y. Galperin and his colleagues: A.R. Luria, A.N. Leontyev, P.I. Zinchenko and D.B. Elkonin, A.V. Zaporozhets, A.A. Smirnov. The contributions of these outstanding scientists in psychological science are shown on a par with biographical account and their personal traits.

The paper is devoted to Boris Dmitrievich Parygin, a talented Russian psychologist and educator, who trained many generations of students and postgraduates.It briefly touches upon the main facts of the scholar’s life, highlights the results of his research and reveals the scope of his scientific and educational work. It is shownthat B.D. Parygin was also an outstanding science develper. Upon his initiative, the Department of Social Psychology and the first “Social psychological research” laboratoryon the basis of Leningrad Gertsen Teacher-Training Institute was the first one to be established in the USSR.

There are facts that point to Boris Parygin’s contribution to the establishment and development of social psychology. The author notes that the scholar established the basisof methodology and developed the subject area of social psychology as an independent science, and justified its status in the humanities.

Particular emphasis is put on the conceptually important aspects of scientific creativity of B.D. Parygin’s recent years that are relevant to today critical problems of humandevelopment, culture, and society.

The author writes about the scholar’s idea of personal integrity, humanistic function of psychology and the coherent worldview principle of dialogue as an alternative toanti-human communication.

The article written by the son and grandson of Russian psychologist A.N. Leontiev reflects not only his great and varied scientific and organizational services to the domestic psychological science, but also paints a vivid picture of Alexei Leontiev as a person.

In contrast to the previous quite formal biographical articles about this great scientist, this paper lively and vividly describes what actually was the life and work of A. Leontiev. His biography details allow to imagine the situation in this country, in the time when he had to study, work and create.

Talking about personal traits of Alexey Leontiev, the authors point out that the scholar never engaged himself in delegating powers or acting according to the boss’s instructions. He constantly sought from the authorities healthy decisions for psychology. His authority in power was so great that he was able to do almost everything that he sought to do. A.N. Leontiev did not take any important decision without having a council with the people around him. In his collaboration with Lev Vygotsky, almost all decisions were taken together.

The authors openly, with gentle humor are writing of the early years of the future professor, about an uneasy scientific career, a creative, educational and administrative activity in later years. Their story gives an idea of Alexei Leontiev, and as a brilliant scientist, and as a highly respectable, vulnerable, very emotional person, and a very nice man.

The article comprehensively analyzes the specifics of scientific relations between the two leading Russian psychologists A.N. Leontiev and L.S. Vygotsky. It is shown how initial relationship between the teacher (L.Vygotsky) and an attentive disciple (A. Leontiev) was replaced disengagement, search and defense of their own views. The author demonstrates the dynamics of psychological ideas of these two scientists. He highlights different approaches to the problem of activity and identity, which made them part in a certain period of time.Considerable attention is paid to the scientific work of A. Leontiev, who lived and created in the socialist times of ideological pressure. It is shown how in spite of this adverse factor Alexei Leontiev, the founder of the activity theory, where moral principles are out of place where a person becomes its “product”, managed to come to the need for a special study of personality, his/her moral value sphere. Referring to specific works of A. Leontiev, the author shows the evolution of A. Leontiev ideas as “leader of the Marxist psychology” in the internal context of his scientific research, which has led to the fact that he erased the fundamental differences with L. Vygotsky on the problem of experiences and activities.

The author suggests that in his last years A.N. Leontiev’s views were close to the “late” L. Vygotsky’s viewpoint, taking the side of his Master, an older friend, and at the same time, as it is a usual thing in the academic life, the main opponent. This proves the fact that two years before his death in 1977, A.N. Leontiev actually agreed with Vygotsky on the problem of experiences and activities.