| Popis: |
As the Second International Congress, which was organized by the International Society for Cultural and Activity Research (ISCAR) and took place in September 2008 in San Diego (UCSD), has vividly demonstrated, over the period of the existence of L.S. Vygotsky's theory some of its interpretations have changed and, besides, there have emerged some tendencies caused by the processes of hyperglobalization in modern research based on L.S. Vygotsky's theory. M. Cole delivered a lecture sharing his vision and hypothesis on further development of L.S. Vygotsky's theory in the future. In this paper I would like to make an emphasis on some of other issues.Psychology has been developing over the last 75 years in such a way that a new interpretation of L.S. Vygotsky's work comes in as a sign of the science progress. That is why prognoses may be brought into another sphere. What is the real direction that development of modern psychology takes? May it be so, that objective tendencies of its development are the ones that provided an opportunity to comprehend and assimilate the methodological potential that had been embedded in the theory? In other words, it is possible that L.S. Vygotsky who deeply felt the tendencies of science development managed to figure out the general vector of such development and endeavoured to elaborate a theory which would pass ahead of its time. Therefore, S. Toulmin called him "The Mozart of Psychology," i.e. the scientist whose style of thinking, though not always transparent, makes an impression of "the state of the art methodological culture"; and we have a long way to go before we can attain this level of culture. (Toulmin, 1981). It is not by chance, that L.S. Vygotsky would call his theory "top psychology."I maintain a standpoint, which I have repeatedly expressed, that L.S. Vygotsky is "a classic of post-nonclassical psychology" that is the reason why he had not been understood by his contemporaries who at that point were mastering the basics of non-classical thinking and why he remains enigmatic for our time, when methodology of post-nonclassical science has only begun to establish itself (Klochko, 2005; 2007; 2008; Klochko & Galazhinsky, 2009). My position got strengthened after the analysis of scientific diaries and notes of L.S. Vygotsky published in 2008 (Zavershneva, 2008), in which he contemplates over the causes of the crisis that stroke the theory in 1930-1934; i.e. during the last four years of the scientist's life; those directions of thinking which he considered to be the wrong, as well as some other ideas about possible ways to remedy the situation which he did not manage to develop and apply. In this paper I will make an attempt to demonstrate that despite the fact that this self-critical analysis had not been available to us at the beginning of 1970s, the power of ideas embedded in the axiomatics of the theory, as well as guesses about the tendencies of science development, made it possible for the followers of this theory to approach the solution to those problems which were singled out by L.S. Vygotsky, and what is more, in the way that he had intended.By the "followers" of cultural-historical psychology in this case I mean A.N. Leontiev, his student O.K. Tikhomirov who created the semantic theory of thinking, and later held a chair of the department established by A.N. Leontiev; I mean us, the students of O.K. Tikhomirov, myself in particular, and at the present moment my students as well. That is why ideas that will be discussed in the paper should not be considered as a claim to develop "the one and only correct" conception of cultural-historical psychology, which goes back to its founder, but one of many diverse ways of its development, which nevertheless follows an active style of thinking and experimentation and a particular view on evolution of historically established self-developing "human dimensional" systems (the transspective analysis).S. Vygotsky: mastering multidimensionalityWhat distinguished L. … |
