Integration of psychological knowledge in dialectical psychology: possible approaches

1
Integration of psychological knowledge in
dialectical psychology possible approaches

• Elena E. Sokolova

2

• 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.Vygotsky-A.N.Leont
  iev-A.R.Luria school by way of solution of
  certain fundamental problems of the science of
  psychology.

3

• 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.Vygotsky-A.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.

4

• 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.Vygotsky-A.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.

5

• 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.Vygotsky-A.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).

6

• 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.

7

• 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
  self-determination 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 well-known 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.

8

• 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.

9

• 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.

10

• 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.