The Historical Meaning of the Crisis of Cultural Activity Psychology

ABSTRACT

In this paper, we discuss the past, present, and future of the cultural activity approach as a methodology that aims to integrate the humanities and the natural sciences, psychotechnical and theoretical knowledge. An attempt has been made to conceptualize another crisis in cultural activity psychology. The meaning of the historical crisis of cultural activity psychology is reflected in the future prospects of its development, bridging the gap between classical and contemporary approaches. Reflection on the crisis of cultural activity psychology allows us to underline the following axioms: the need for dialogue with different variants of the cultural activity movement in modern psychology; the need for reflection on the myths and dangers of canonizing certain thinkers; the presumption of decency among professionals who are attracted to the school of Leo Vygotsky, and understanding of their motivation in developing his ideas. In addition to the axioms required for an appropriate dialogue with researchers who are interested in L.S. Vygotsky, there are risks that restrict the understanding and development of his legacy: the risk of science-policy isolationism, the risk of sectarianism, the risk of “jubilee” historicism, the risk of reducing monism to monotheism. These axioms and risks are aspects of the cognitive situation that are important for further development of the research program of cultural activity psychology. Discussing cultural activity psychology as a methodology and a special intellectual movement allows us to emphasize a number of meta-features of cultural activity psychology as a world-view. On the level of specific scientific methodology, we can consider the relationship of cultural activity psychology to other sciences in which the category of “activity” is the key one. Summing up, we refer to the cultural activity approach to social and cultural practices, which expresses the methodological approach of social constructivism.

KEYWORDS:

• methodology
• history of science
• crisis in psychology
• cultural activity approach
• social constructivism

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

¹ We should also note the proposal for a possible synthesis of the intellectual traditions of cultural-historical psychology and Gestalt psychology, developed in the works of A. Yasnitsky (2012a, 2012b).