If you are not interested in historical context of AT and around it, please
disregard...
Dot asked:
1) What distinguishes A. N. Leontiev's activity theory beyond actions? What
were the other theories of psychology at that time in Russia (beyond the
Vygotskian paradigm), not including Rubenshtein?
I'll answer to the second part.
There were theories - and indeed whole schools of thought - at the time when
Leont'ev developed his AT. These theories had their own distinct
foundations, developed their own distinct systems of arguments and,
generally, took a completely distinct course that often collided with that
of CHAT.
First, the theory of so called 'ustanovka' ('set', as it is usually
translated but I am not sure if this is a good translation) by Dmitrij
Uznadze and his many colleagues and followers in Tbilisi (Soviet Georgia).
This school still exists and there are interesting people working in it (in
very desperate conditions, by the way, no comparison to those in Moscow).
There have been many conferences held and works published on where and how
exactly Uznadze and L disagree and generally relate; e.g., Alexandr Asmolov
has written a lot about the relationships between L and Uznadze.
Second, there was so -called Leningrad school of psychology (e.g., Lomov,
Bodalev, Klimov) that completely disagreed with L and V, were clearly
opposed to all the cultural-historical views and fought fierce battles with
L, Davydov and Zinchenko on academic, political and administrative 'fronts'
all the way through 70-ties and 80-ties (and perhaps as early as 60-ties).
Leont'ev's lenin's prize did not give him much protection from this,
actually.
The Leningrad school of psychology was basically an ideal example of a
positivist empiricist science with all the typical attributes of it. It was
always a challenge to participate in big national conferences as a
representative of CHAT because these would typically be a minority, often
attacked by more numerous representatives of the positivist psychology. The
latter ones concentrated mostly in Leningrad first but certainly had a lot
of influence around the country (positivists are influential everywhere in
the world more than CHAT, I guess...) Then Lomov moved to Moscow and
established his own big Institute of Psychology (IPAN) and later Bodalev
moved to Moscow too and CHAT people were pushed out from many important
places including even the Moscow State University and Davydov's Institute
(NIIOPP). It was the general knowledge that because Lomov was directly
involved with military research and had many connections at the high party
levels, he was more influential than Leont'ev and caused the latter many
real headackes and troubles (e.g., the system of Academy of Science was the
one best supplied and supported financially and L was said to have wanted to
be involved in it but he wasn't allowed anywhere close by Lomov). I think, a
good example for all this is that during the 70-ties and early 80-ties, to
the best of my knowledge, very few (at least very rarely even in case of L,
although Luria has had more chances) of the AT people could represent Soviet
Psychology at International conferences, they were simply not allowed to
travel internationally (this all changed when Gorbachev took off travel
restrictions, starting from app.1987...). Instead, Lomov and his close
colleagues were the only proud representatives of this country, for example,
at the World Psychological Congresses. Incidentally, Lomov tragically died
during one of his trips abroad for such a conference (I believe, it was
Brussels) from a heart attack...
By the way, speaking of Davydov, and relating to what Yrjo once wrote.
Davydov's trouble with the communist party was allegedly inspired by Bodalev
and Lomov and had more to do with their struggle for power in the Academy of
Education than with any pure ideology. Formally, Davydov was expelled from
the party for some financial violations with budget spending at the
Institute that he directed at the time (he was in fact a very sloppy
administrator, as far as I know... he was a real scientist, a bit
absent-minded and a bit naive in financial aspects, this is my personal
view). He was actually quite promptly rehabilitated and restored as a party
member but replaced as the director by Alexej Matjushkin.
Then there was Rubinstein and his followers such as Brushlinskij...this has
been covered already.
There were other, less prominent theories as well, but I think this is
enough to make a point: Leont'ev has never had a status of an official and
single authority in psychology (beyond the walls of psychology department
that he headed and those who chose to follow him, such as many at Davydov's
Institute). CHAT, or if we take AT in isolation, both were not more that one
of the many perspectives developed in Soviet psychology that went through
periods of fierce fights between them. Alex Kozulin did not get it right, I
am sorry. Ironically, when I wrote about Vygotsky-Leontjev in my previous
message, I wanted to mention that, in my view, Kozulin played a role in
mis-representing AT as an opposition to Vygotsky and I thought it could
influence Dot's views (I deleted this passage as many others to avoid being
too detailed).
Luckily, there are historians of psychology who have documented a lot of
this, although not all and not in full scope - Yaroshevskij, Umrikhin,
Zhdan, AA Leontjev. Yaroshevskij is now somewhere in the US, does anybody
know where? Now Elena Sokolova writes a lot about Soviet psychology and V
and L, drawing from archives and letters, publishing unpublished previously
manuscripts by V and L and many others. It will take time to re-construct
all of this in more detail but it comforts me that many people are working
on that and also that many people are interested - like the xmca
discussants. Thank you for your interest - it will help to get to a more
objective picture, I am sure.
Anna Stetsenko
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:00:50 PST