From the authors
The book offers readers (senior-year students of pedagogical universities and psychological faculties of universities, as well as graduate students of psychology departments) a holistic and systematized consideration of the foundations of theoretical psychology as a special branch of science.
The textbook continues and develops the issues contained in the previous works of the authors (Yaroshevsky M.G. History of Psychology, 3rd ed., 1985; Yaroshevsky M.G. Psychology of the 20th Century, 2nd ed., 1974; Petrovsky A.V. . Issues of history and theory of psychology. Selected works, 1984; Petrovsky A.V., Yaroshevsky M.G. History of psychology, 1995; 1996; Yaroshevsky M.G. Historical psychology of science, 1996).
The book examines: the subject of theoretical psychology, psychological cognition as an activity, historicism of theoretical analysis, categorical structure, explanatory principles and key problems of psychology. At its core, “Fundamentals of Theoretical Psychology” is a textbook intended for completing a full course in psychology in higher educational institutions.
The introductory chapter “Theoretical psychology as a field of psychological science” and chapters 9, 11, 14 were written by A.V. Petrovsky; Chapter 10 V.A. Petrovsky; chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 M.G. Yaroshevsky; the final chapter “The categorical system is the core of theoretical psychology” was written jointly by A.V. Petrovsky, V.A. Petrovsky, M.G. Yaroshevsky.
The authors will gratefully accept comments and suggestions that will contribute to further scientific work in the field of theoretical psychology.
THEORETICAL PSYCHOLOGY
AS A FIELD OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE
(introductory chapter)
Subject of theoretical psychology
The subject of theoretical psychology is self-reflection of psychological science, identifying and exploring its categorical structure (protopsychological, basic, metapsychological, extrapsychological categories), explanatory principles (determinism, systematicity, development), key problems arising in the historical path of development of psychology (psychophysical, psychophysiological, psychognostic etc.), as well as psychological cognition itself as a special type of activity.
The term “theoretical psychology” is found in the works of many authors, but it has not been used to formulate a special scientific field.
Elements of theoretical psychology, included in the context of both general psychology and its applied branches, are presented in the works of Russian and foreign scientists.
Many aspects concerning the nature and structure of psychological cognition were analyzed. The self-reflection of science intensified during crisis periods of its development. Thus, at one of the boundaries of history, namely at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries, discussions flared up about what method of concept formation psychology should focus on - either what is accepted in the natural sciences, or what belongs to to culture. Subsequently, issues related to the subject area of psychology, in contrast to other sciences and specific methods of its study, were discussed from various positions. Topics such as the relationship between theory and empirics, the effectiveness of explanatory principles used in the range of psychological problems, the significance and priority of these problems themselves, etc. were repeatedly touched upon. The most significant contribution to the enrichment of scientific ideas about the uniqueness of psychological science itself, its composition and structure was made by Russian researchers Soviet period P.P. Blonsky, L.S. Vygotsky, M.Ya. Basov, S.L. Rubinstein, B.M. Teplov. However, its components have not yet been isolated from the content of various branches of psychology, where they existed with other material (concepts, methods of study, historical information, practical applications, etc.). Thus, S.L. Rubinstein, in his major work “Fundamentals of General Psychology,” gives an interpretation of various solutions to a psychophysical problem and examines the concept of psychophysiological parallelism, interaction, and unity. But this range of questions does not act as the subject of study of a special branch, different from general psychology, which is primarily addressed to the analysis of mental processes and states. Theoretical psychology, therefore, did not act for him (as for other scientists) as a special integral scientific discipline.
A feature of the formation of theoretical psychology at the present time is the contradiction between its already established components (categories, principles, problems) and its lack of representation as an integral field, as a system of psychological categories. The authors tried to eliminate the noted contradiction in this book. At the same time, if it were called “Theoretical Psychology,” this would presuppose the completeness of the formation of the field thus designated. In reality, we are dealing with the “openness” of this scientific field to include many new links. In this regard, it is advisable to talk about the “foundations of theoretical psychology,” meaning the further development of problems that ensure the integrity of the scientific field.
In the context of theoretical psychology, the problem of the relationship between empirical knowledge and its theoretical generalization arises. At the same time, the process of psychological cognition itself is considered as a special type of activity. This, in particular, also raises the problem of the relationship between objective research methods and introspection data. The theoretically complex question has repeatedly arisen about what introspection actually provides, whether the results of introspection can be considered on a par with what can be obtained by objective methods (B.M. Teplov). Doesn't it turn out that, looking into himself, a person deals not with the analysis of mental processes and states, but only with the external world, which is reflected and presented in them?
An important aspect of the branch of psychology under consideration is its predictive capabilities. Theoretical knowledge is a system not only of statements, but also of predictions regarding the occurrence of various phenomena, transitions from one statement to another without direct reference to sensory experience.
The separation of theoretical psychology into a special sphere of scientific knowledge is due to the fact that psychology is capable, on its own, relying on its own achievements and guided by its own values, to comprehend the origins of its formation and development prospects. We still remember those times when “methodology decided everything,” although the processes of the emergence and application of methodology may have had nothing to do with psychology in society. Many still maintain the belief that the subject of psychology and its main categories can initially be taken from somewhere outside, from the area of extra-psychological knowledge. A huge number of widespread methodological developments devoted to problems of activity, consciousness, communication, personality, development, were written by philosophers, but at the same time addressed specifically to psychologists. The latter were charged with a special vision of their tasks in the spirit of the quite appropriate question at the end of the 19th century, “Who and how to develop psychology?”, that is, in the search for those areas of scientific knowledge (philosophy, physiology, theology, sociology, etc.) who would create psychological science. Of course, psychology’s search within itself for the sources of its growth, “branching,” flourishing and emergence of sprouts of new theories would be absolutely unthinkable without psychologists turning to special philosophical, cultural, natural science and sociological works. However, despite the importance of the support that non-psychological disciplines provide to psychology, they are not able to replace the work of self-determination of psychological thought. Theoretical psychology responds to this challenge: it forms an image of itself by looking at its past, present and future.
Theoretical psychology is not equal to the sum of psychological theories. Like any whole, it is more than a collection of its parts. Various theories and concepts within theoretical psychology conduct a dialogue with each other, are reflected in each other, discover in themselves what is common and special that brings them together or alienates them. Thus, before us is the place of “meeting” of these theories.
Until now, none of the general psychological theories could declare itself as a theory that is truly general in relation to cumulative psychological knowledge and the conditions for its acquisition. Theoretical psychology is initially focused on building such a system of scientific knowledge in the future. While the material for the development of special psychological theories and concepts are facts obtained empirically and generalized in concepts (the first stage of psychological knowledge), the material of theoretical psychology is these theories and concepts themselves (the second stage), arising in specific historical conditions.
History of psychological science and historicism of theoretical psychology
Inextricably linked areas of psychological science, the history of psychology and theoretical psychology, nevertheless, differ significantly in the subject of study. The tasks of a historian of psychology are to trace the development of research and its theoretical formulation in connection with the vicissitudes of civil history and in interaction with related fields of knowledge. The historian of psychology follows from one period of the development of science to another, from characterizing the views of one prominent scientist to analyzing the views of another. In contrast, theoretical psychology uses the principle of historicism to analytically consider the result of the development of science at each of its (development) stages, as a result of which the components of modern theoretical knowledge become clear in the most significant characteristics and approaches. For these purposes, historical material is used to carry out theoretical analysis.
Therefore, the authors considered it appropriate to turn first of all to the activities of Russian psychologists, whose works, due to ideological obstacles, turned out to be very poorly represented in world psychological science. At the same time, the foundations of theoretical psychology proposed for consideration could be built on material obtained by analyzing American, French, German or some other psychology. The legitimacy of such a view can be explained by the fact that in Russian psychology the main directions of psychological thought presented in world science actually turned out to be reflected (with all the difficulties of their relay through the “Iron Curtain”). This refers to the work of Russian psychologists I.M. Sechenov, I.P. Pavlov, V.A. Wagner, S.L. Rubinstein, L.S. Vygotsky. It is the invariance of theoretical psychology that makes it possible to consider it within currently existing scientific schools and directions that have not lost their significance. Therefore, to characterize theoretical psychology, there is no reason to use the name “history of psychology” and, to the same extent, “theory of psychology,” although both history and theories of psychology are included in its composition.
Metaphysics and Psychology
In 1971, M.G. Yaroshevsky introduced, in contrast to the traditional concept of general philosophical categories covering universal forms of being and knowledge, the concept of the “categorical structure of psychological science.” This innovation was not the result of speculative constructions. While studying the history of psychology, M.G. Yaroshevsky turned to analyzing the reasons for the collapse of some psychological schools and movements. At the same time, it turned out that their creators turned out to be focused on one relatively isolated, obviously priority psychological phenomenon for researchers (for example, behaviorism based its views on behavior and action; Gestalt psychology image, etc.). Thus, in the fabric of psychological reality they implicitly identified one invariant “universal”, which became the basis for constructing the corresponding theory in all its branches. This made it possible, on the one hand, to more easily build the logic of development of the research system, the transition from some experimentally verified statements to others, confidently predicted. On the other hand, this narrowed the scope of application of the original principles, since it was not based on the foundations that were the starting point for other schools and directions. The introduction of the categorical system as the basis on which basic psychological concepts are developed was of fundamental importance. As in all sciences, in psychology categories acted as the most general and fundamental definitions, covering the most essential properties and relationships of the phenomena being studied. In relation to countless psychological concepts, the identified and described basic categories were system-forming, allowing the construction of higher-order categories, metapsychological categories (according to A.V. Petrovsky). While the basic categories are: “image”, “motive”, “action”, “attitude”, born, respectively, in Gestalt psychology, psychoanalysis, behaviorism, interactionism, “metapsychological categories” can be attributed, respectively, to “consciousness” ", "value", "activity", "communication", etc. If the basic categories are a kind of "molecules of psychological knowledge", then metapsychological categories can be compared with "organisms".
Isolating, along with “basic” categories, metapsychological categories and the ontological models corresponding to them allows us to move on to the most complete comprehension and explanation of psychological reality. On this path, the opportunity opens up to consider theoretical psychology as a scientific discipline of a metaphysical nature. At the same time, metaphysics is not understood here in the traditional sense of Marxism, which interpreted it as a philosophical method opposite to dialectics (considering phenomena in their immutability and independence from each other, denying internal contradictions as a source of development).
Meanwhile, this flat approach to understanding metaphysics, ignoring its real meaning, rooted in the teachings of Aristotle, can and should be replaced by an appeal to the ideas of the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov. From the point of view of V. Solovyov, metaphysics is, first of all, the doctrine of entities and phenomena that naturally replace each other, coincide and do not coincide with each other. From the point of view of V. Solovyov, the opposition between essence and phenomenon does not stand up to criticism, not only epistemological, but also simply logical. These two concepts have a correlative and formal meaning for him. The phenomenon reveals, manifests its essence, and the essence is revealed, manifests itself in its phenomenon and at the same time, what is an essence in a certain relation or at a certain level of cognition is only a phenomenon in another relation or at another level of cognition. Turning to psychology, V. Solovyov emphasized (we use his typical phraseology below): “... a word or action is a phenomenon or discovery of my hidden states of thought, feeling and will, which are not directly given to an outside observer and in this sense represent for him some "unknowable essence." However (according to V. Solovyov) it is known precisely through its external appearance; but this psychological essence, for example, a certain act of will, is only a phenomenon of a general character or mental disposition, which in turn is not the final essence, but only a manifestation of a deeper soulful being (intelligible character according to I. Kant), to which facts of moral crises and degenerations indisputably indicate. Thus, in both the external and internal world, it is completely impossible to draw a definite and constant boundary between essence and phenomenon, and, consequently, between the subject of metaphysics and the positive in science, and their unconditional opposition is a clear mistake.
The metaphysical views of Vladimir Solovyov are of utmost importance for understanding the explanatory principle of constructing a categorical system in theoretical psychology. Metapsychological categories reveal the essential characteristics of basic categories. At the same time, metapsychological categories themselves can act as essential ones for other categories of a higher order. In the final section of the book they are called extrapsychological.
Metaphysics in the understanding of Vladimir Solovyov can become the subject of special attention when developing a system of theoretical psychology.
By identifying the categorical structure, the historicism of psychological analysis gives the historian of psychology the opportunity to move to the position of a developer of theoretical psychology.
By formulating the principle of openness of the categorical structure as one of the principles of theoretical psychology, researchers have the opportunity to expand basic categories through psychological understanding of other concepts appearing in psychology, and thus new dyads can be built: basic category metapsychological category. So, for example, to the four basic categories first introduced by M.G. Yaroshevsky when characterizing the categorical structure of psychology, in this book two more are added: “experience” and “individual”. The metapsychological development of these categories (based on other, basic ones) can be found, respectively, in such categories as “feeling” and “I”.
So, at this moment in the development of problems of theoretical psychology, the possibility of an upward movement in the concretization of basic psychological categories in the direction of metapsychological categories of varying degrees of generality and specificity can be noted. The following series of hypothetical correspondences between basic and metapsychological categories emerges:
The relationship between basic and metapsychological categories defined below can be interpreted as follows: in each metapsychological category, a certain basic psychological category is revealed through its correlation with other basic categories (which makes it possible to identify the “systemic quality” contained in it). While in each of the basic categories each other basic category exists hidden, “collapsed,” each metapsychological category represents an “unfoldment” of these latent formations. The relationship between the basic categories of psychology can be compared to the relationship between Leibnizian monads: each reflects each. If we try to metaphorically express the relationship between basic and metapsychological categories, then it would be appropriate to recall the hologram: “a part of the hologram (basic category) contains the whole (metapsychological category).” To verify this, just look at any fragment of this “hologram” from a certain angle.
Logically, each metapsychological category is a subject-predicative construction, in which the position of the subject is occupied by some basic category (one example: “image” as a basic category in the metapsychological category “consciousness”), and the relation of this basic category acts as a predicate with other basic categories ("motive", "action", "attitude", "experience"). Thus, the metapsychological category “consciousness” is considered as a development of the basic psychological category “image”, and, for example, the basic category “action” takes on a concrete form in the metapsychological category “activity”, etc. We will call the basic category in the function of the logical subject of any metapsychological category its “categorical core”; the categories through which this nuclear category turns into a metapsychological category will be designated as “formalizing” (“concretizing”). We depict the formal relationship between basic and metapsychological categories in Fig. 1 (with metapsychological categories, “nuclear” categories are connected here by vertical lines, and “formative” ones by oblique lines)
Basic psychological categories
Rice. 1.
Basic (core) categories
associated with metapsychological thick vertical lines,
and the decorative ones are thin slanted
From the above figure it is clear that, in accordance with the principle of openness of the categorical system of theoretical psychology, a number of basic psychological categories, as well as a number of metapsychological ones, are open. Three versions can be proposed to explain this.
- Some psychological categories (both basic and metapsychological) have not yet been studied or identified as categories of theoretical psychology, although in private psychological concepts they appear as “working” concepts.
- Some categories are being born only today; like everything that arises “here and now,” they are still outside the scope of the actual self-reflection of science.
- Some of the psychological categories will appear, in all likelihood, in private psychological theories over time, in order to someday become part of the categories of theoretical psychology.
The proposed method of ascending to metapsychological categories based on categories of the basic level is further briefly illustrated using the example of correlating some categories that have already been defined in psychology to one degree or another.
Image → Consciousness. Is “consciousness” really the metapsychological equivalent of the basic category “image”? In recent literature, opinions have been expressed that exclude such a version. It is argued that consciousness is not, as A.N. Leontiev believed, for example, “in its immediacy... the picture of the world that is revealed to the subject, in which he himself, his actions and states are included,” and is not “an attitude to reality ", but there is a "relationship in reality itself", "a set of relationships in a system of other relationships", "has no individual existence or individual representation." In other words, consciousness is supposedly not an image; the emphasis is shifted to the category of “relationship”. Such a view, it seems to us, follows from a limited understanding of the category “image”. The connection between the concept of “image” and the concept of “idea”, which has a centuries-old tradition in the history of philosophical and psychological thought, has been missed. An idea is an image (thought) in action, a productive representation that forms its object. In the idea, the opposition of the subjective and the objective is overcome. And therefore it is quite reasonable to think that “ideas create the world.” By identifying in an image what characterizes it in terms of its effectiveness (and therefore, the motives, relationships, experiences of the individual), we define it as consciousness. So, consciousness is a holistic image of reality (which in turn means the area of human action), realizing the motives and relationships of the individual and including his self-experience, along with the experience of the externality of the world in which the subject exists. So, the logical core of the definition of the category of “consciousness” here is the basic category “image”, and the formative categories are “action”, “motive”, “relationships”, “experience”, “individual”.
Motive → Value. The “strength test” of the idea of ascent from abstract (basic) to concrete (metapsychological) categories can also be carried out using the example of the development of the category “motive”. In this case, a difficult question arises about which metapsychological category should be put in correspondence with this basic category ("meaning formation"? "significance"? "value orientations"? "value"?). However, while there is no doubt that all these concepts are in overlap with each other and at the same time correlate with the category “motive,” they cannot, for various reasons, be considered a metapsychological equivalent of the latter. One solution to this problem is to involve the “value” category. By asking what the values of this person are, we are asking about the hidden motives of his behavior, but the motive itself is not yet a value. For example, you can feel attracted to something or someone and at the same time be ashamed of this feeling. Are these motivations “values”? Yes, but only in the sense that these are “negative values”. This phrase should be recognized as derived from the original “positive” interpretation of the category “value” (they talk about “material and spiritual, objective and subjective, cognitive and moral values”, etc., etc.). Thus, value is not just a motive, but a motive characterized by a certain place in the system of self-relations of the subject. A motive, considered as a value, appears in the mind of an individual as an essential characteristic of his (the individual’s) existence in the world. We are faced with a similar understanding of value both in everyday and scientific consciousness (“value” in ordinary usage means “a phenomenon, an object that has one meaning or another, is important, significant in some respect”; in philosophical terms it emphasizes the normative evaluative nature of "value"). What is valuable is what a person, according to Hegel, recognizes as his own. However, before the motive appears to the individual as a value, an assessment must be made, and sometimes a revaluation of the role that the motive plays or can play in the processes of self-realization of the individual. In other words, in order for a motive to be included by an individual in his self-image and thus act as a value, the individual must carry out a certain action (value self-determination). The result of this action is not only the image of the motive, but also the experience of the soldered motive by the individual as an important and integral “part” of himself. At the same time, value is something that, in the eyes of a given individual, is also valued by other people, that is, it has a motivating force for them. Through values, the individual personalizes (gains his ideal representation and continuity in communication). Motives-values, being hidden, are actively revealed in communication, serving to “open up” those communicating with each other. Thus, the category of “value” is inseparable from the basic category of “relationship”, considered not only in the internal, but also in the external sense. So, value is a motive that, in the process of self-determination, is considered and experienced by the individual as his own inalienable “part,” which forms the basis for the “self-presentation” (personalization) of the subject in communication.
Experience → Feeling. The category “experience” (in the broad sense of the word) can be considered as nuclear in the construction of the metapsychological category “feeling”. S.L. Rubinstein in “Fundamentals of General Psychology” distinguished between primary and specific “experience”. In the first meaning (we consider it as defining for the establishment of one of the basic psychological categories), “experience” is considered as an essential characteristic of the psyche, the quality of “belonging” to the individual of what constitutes the “inner content” of his life; S.L. Rubinstein, speaking about the primacy of such an experience, distinguished it from experiences “in a specific, emphasized sense of the word”; the latter have an eventful nature, expressing the “uniqueness” and “significance” of something in the inner life of the individual. Such experiences, in our opinion, constitute what can be called a feeling. A special analysis of S.L. Rubinstein’s texts could show that the path of formation of an event experience (“feeling”) is a path of mediation: the primary experience that forms it appears in its conditioning on the part of the image, motive, action, and relationships of the individual. Thus, considering “experience” (in a broad sense) as a basic category of psychology, the category “feeling” in the logic of ascension can be considered as a metapsychological category.
Action → Activity. The metapsychological equivalent of the basic category “action” is the category “activity”. This book develops the view according to which activity is a holistic, internally differentiated (originally collective-distributive in nature) self-valuable action - such an action, the source, goal, means and result of which lies within itself. The source of activity is the motives of the individual, its goal the image of the possible, as a prototype of what will happen, its means action in the direction of intermediate goals and, finally, its result the experience of the relationships that the individual develops with the world (in particular, relationships with other people).
Attitude → Communication. The category of “relationships” is system-forming (core) for the construction of the metapsychological category “communication”. “Communicate” means to relate to each other, consolidating existing relationships or forming new ones. The constitutive characteristic of relationships is the assumption of the position of another subject ("playing out" his role) and the ability to combine in thoughts and feelings one's own vision of the situation and the point of view of another. This is possible through performing certain actions. The purpose of these actions is the production of something common (something “third” in relation to those communicating). Among these actions are: communicative acts (exchange of information), acts of decentration (putting oneself in the place of another) and personalization (achieving subjective reflection in another). The subjective level of reflection contains a holistic image-experience of another person, which creates additional incentives (motives) for his partner.
Individual → Self. In the logic of “ascending from the abstract to the concrete,” the category “individual” can be considered as basic in the construction of the metapsychological category “I”. The basis of such a view is formed by the idea of the individual’s self-identity as an essential characteristic of his “I”. It is assumed that the individual’s experience and perception of his self-identity form an internal and integral characteristic of his “I”: the individual strives to maintain his own integrity, to protect the “territory of the “I””, and, therefore, realizes a special attitude towards himself and others, carrying out certain actions . In a word, “I” is the individual’s identity with himself, given to him in the image and experience of himself and forming the motive of his actions and relationships.
Key issues and explanatory principles of psychology
The principle of determinism reflects the natural dependence of phenomena on the factors that generate them. This principle in psychology allows us to identify the factors that determine the most important characteristics of the human psyche, revealing their dependence on the generating conditions rooted in his existence. The corresponding chapter of the book characterizes various types and forms of determination of psychological phenomena, explaining their origin and characteristics.
Development principle allows us to understand personality precisely as a developing, successively passing phases, periods, eras and eras of the formation of its essential characteristics. At the same time, it is necessary to emphasize the organic relationship and interdependence of the explanatory principles accepted by theoretical psychology as defining ones.
Systematic principle this is not a declaration, not a fashionable word usage, as was the case in Russian psychology in the 70-80s. Systematicity presupposes the presence of a system-forming principle, which, for example, when applied in the psychology of personality development, makes it possible to understand the characteristics of a developing personality based on the use of the concept of active mediation, which acts as a system-forming principle. Thus, the explanatory principles of psychology are in an indissoluble unity, without which the formation of a methodology of scientific knowledge in psychology is impossible. Explanatory principles in psychology underlie the categorical system proposed in the final section of the book as the core of theoretical psychology.
Key issues theoretical psychology (psychophysical, psychophysiological, psychognostic, psychosocial, psychopraxic), to the same extent as the categories, form a series open to possible further addition. Arising at virtually every stage of the historical path of formation of psychological knowledge, they turned out to be most dependent on the state of related sciences: philosophy (primarily epistemology), hermeneutics, physiology, as well as social practice. For example, the psychophysiological problem in its solution options (psychophysical parallelism, interaction, unity) bears the imprint of philosophical discussions between supporters of the dualistic and monistic worldview and successes in developing a body of knowledge in the field of psychophysiology. Emphasizing the key nature of these problems, we separate them from the countless number of private issues and problems solved in various fields and branches of psychology. The key problems in this regard could rightfully be considered “classical” ones, which have invariably arisen throughout the two thousand year history of psychology.
From the basics to the system of theoretical psychology
The categorical system, explanatory principles and key problems, acting as supports for building the foundations of theoretical psychology and thereby constituting it as a branch of psychology, nevertheless do not exhaust its content,
One can name specific problems, the solution of which leads to the creation of a system of theoretical psychology as a full-fledged scientific branch. The focus is on the relationship between the subject and methods of psychological research, the criterial assessment of the validity of psychological concepts, identifying the place of psychology in the system of scientific knowledge, the reasons for the emergence, flourishing and collapse of psychological schools, the relationship between scientific psychological knowledge and esoteric teachings, and much more.
In a number of cases, rich material has been accumulated for solving these problems. It is enough to point to the work in the field of psychology of science. However, the integration of the results of theoretical research scattered across various monographs, textbooks, and manuals published in Russia and abroad has not yet been carried out. In this regard, to a large extent, the theoretical foundations for turning industries, scientific schools, and various currents of psychology to themselves, to their own foundations, have not developed.
In its essence, theoretical psychology, opposed to practical psychology, is nevertheless organically connected with it. It allows you to separate what meets the requirements of scientific validity from speculation that is not related to science. In Russian psychology of recent years, all this seems especially important.
Theoretical psychology must form a strict attitude to the content of all branches of psychology, determining their place taking into account the use of explanatory principles, the representation of basic, metapsychological and other categories in them, and ways to solve key scientific problems. In order to move from studying and considering the foundations of theoretical psychology to building its system, it is necessary to identify the system-forming principle. In the recent past, this issue would have been resolved with greater “ease.” The philosophy of Marxism-Leninism would be declared to be a similar principle, although this would not advance the solution of the problem. The point, obviously, is not that, for example, historical materialism, the once dominant ideology, could not play this role, but that the system-forming principle of theoretical psychology generally cannot be completely and completely extracted from other philosophical teachings. It must be found in the very fabric of psychological knowledge, especially its self-awareness and self-realization. This, undoubtedly, is the task that psychological theorists are called upon to solve.
Views: 6913Category: »
www.koob.ru
Petrovsky A.V., Yaroshevsky M.G.
Fundamentals of theoretical psychology.
(introductory chapter).
Part 1.
PROLEGOMENA
TO THEORETICAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL
RESEARCH.
Part 2.
BASIC CATEGORIES
PSYCHOLOGY.
Part 3.
METAPSYCHOLOGICAL
Part 4.
EXPLANATORY
PRINCIPLES OF PSYCHOLOGY.
Part 5.
KEY ISSUES
(instead of conclusion).
Literature.
From the authors
The book offers readers (senior-year students of pedagogical
calls and psychological faculties of universities, as well as graduate schools
there departments of psychology) a holistic and systematized consideration
the foundations of theoretical psychology as a special branch of science.
The textbook continues and develops the problems, containing
Psychology, 3rd ed., 1985; Yaroshevsky M.G. Psychology of the XX century
tiya, 2nd ed., 1974; Petrovsky A.V. Questions of history and theory of psycho-
logy. Selected works, 1984; Petrovsky A.V., Yaroshevsky M.G. Is-
theory of psychology, 1995; Petrovsky A.V., Yaroshevsky M.G. Story
and theory of psychology, in 2 volumes, 1996; Yaroshevsky M.G. Historical
skaya psychology of science, 1996).
The book covers: the subject of theoretical psychology, psychological
chological cognition as activity, historicism of theoretical
basic problems of psychology. In its essence, "Fundamentals of Theoretical
psychological psychology" is a textbook intended for completing
teaching a full course of psychology in higher educational institutions.
Introductory chapter "Theoretical psychology as a field of psychology"
scientific science" and chapters 9, 1 1, 14 were written by A.V. Petrovsky; chapter 10 -
V.A. Petrovsky; chapters 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17-
M.G. Yaroshevsky; final chapter "Categorical system -
core theoretical psychology" was written jointly by A.V. Petrovsky,
V.A. Petrovsky, M.G. Yaroshevsky.
The authors will gratefully accept comments and suggestions,
which will contribute to further scientific work in the field of technology
oretic psychology.
Prof. A.V. Petrovsky
Prof. M.G. Yaroshevsky
Theoretical psychology as a field of psychological science
(introductory chapter)
Subject Subject of theoretical psychology - self-referential
theoretical lecture of psychological science, identifying and using
psychology following its categorical structure (protopsy-
chemical, basic, metapsychological, extra-
nism, systematicity, development), key problems arising
on the historical path of development of psychology (psychophysical, psychological
hophysiological, psychognostic, etc.), as well as the psycho-
logical cognition as a special type of activity.
The term "theoretical psychology" is found in the works of many
scientific industry.
Elements of theoretical psychology included in the context as
general psychology and its applied branches are presented in
works of Russian and foreign scientists.
Many aspects concerning the nature and
structures of psychological cognition. Self-reflection of science of technology
suffered during crisis periods of its development. So, on one of the rub-
history, namely at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century,
Discussions arose about what method of education
psychology should be guided by acceptance - either by what is accepted
taken in the natural sciences, or what relates to culture. IN
Subsequently, issues related to
entire subject area of psychology, in contrast to other sciences and specialties
digital methods for its study. The following were repeatedly touched upon:
topics such as the relationship between theory and empirics, the effectiveness of volume
explanatory principles used in the spectrum of psychological
problems, the significance and priority of these problems themselves, etc.
The most significant contribution to enriching scientific ideas about
the originality of psychological science itself, its composition and structure
contributed by Russian researchers of the Soviet period P.P. Blonsky,
L.S. Vygotsky, M.Ya. Basov, SL. Rubinstein, B.M. Teplov. However
its components have not yet been isolated from the contents of the
personal branches of psychology, where they existed with other mathematics
rial (concepts, methods of study, historical information -
mi, practical applications, etc.). So, S.L. Rubinstein in
in his major work “Fundamentals of General Psychology” gives a
elaboration of various solutions to the psychophysical problem and consideration of
revives the concept of psychophysiological parallelism, mutual
action, unity. But this range of questions does not appear as a pre-
method of studying a special branch, different from general psychology, which
which is primarily addressed to the analysis of mental processes and
states. Theoretical psychology, therefore, did not act
for him (as well as for other scientists) as a special integral
no scientific discipline.
The peculiarity of the formation of theoretical psychology in
the present time is a contradiction between its already established
representation as an integral area, as a system of psychological
eliminate in this book. At the same time, if it were named
"Theoretical psychology", then this would imply completeness
the formation of the area designated in this way. In fact
However, we are dealing with the “openness” of this scientific field for
inclusion of many new links into it. In this regard, it is advisable
but to talk about “the foundations of theoretical psychology”, meaning
further development of the problem, ensuring the integrity
ity of the scientific field.
In the context of theoretical psychology, the problem of co-
the relationship between empirical knowledge and its theoretical generalization.
At the same time, the process of psychological cognition itself is considered
as a special type of activity. Hence, in particular, the following arises:
the problem of the relationship between objective research methods and
self-observation data (introspection). Arose repeatedly
the theoretically complex question of what actually
Introspection reveals whether the results of introspection can be
be considered on a par with what can be acquired through objective measures
todami (B.M. Teplov). Doesn't it turn out that, looking into the world?
By the way, a person is not dealing with the analysis of mental processes and co-
standings, but only with the outside world, which is reflected in them
and presented?
An important aspect of the branch of psychology under consideration is
improve its predictive capabilities. Theoretical knowledge is
is formed by a system of not only statements, but also predictions based on the field
water for the emergence of various phenomena, transitions from one
statements to another without direct appeal to the feeling
personal experience.
Separation of theoretical psychology into a special field of scientific research
knowledge is due to the fact that psychology is capable of its own
forces, relying on their own achievements and guided by their own
natural values, to comprehend the origins of one’s formation,
development prospects. We still remember those times when “methodology
solved everything,” although the processes of emergence and application of the method-
ologies could have nothing to do with psychology, society. Many have up to
There is still a belief that the subject of psychology and its fundamental
areas of extrapsychological knowledge. A huge number of common
methodological developments devoted to the problems of financial
activity, consciousness, communication, personality, development, written fi-
losophists, but at the same time addressed specifically to psychologists. Afterbirth-
they were charged with a special vision of their tasks - in the spirit
quite appropriate at the end of the 19th century the question “Who and how developed
study psychology?", that is, in search of those areas of scientific knowledge
science (philosophy, physiology, theology, sociology, etc.), which
Some would create psychological science. Of course, the search for psycho-
gey in itself of the sources of its growth, “branching”, flourishing
and the appearance of the sprouts of new theories would be absolutely unthinkable
outside the appeal of psychologists to special philosophical, cultural
rological, natural science and sociological works.
However, despite the importance of the support provided
psychology are non-psychological disciplines, they are not capable of
change the work of self-determination of psychological thought. Theo-
rhetic psychology responds to this challenge: it forms the
times yourself, peering into your past, present and future.
Theoretical psychology is not equal to the sum of psychological theories
riy. Like any whole, it represents something painful
neck than the collection of parts that form it. Various theories and con-
concepts within theoretical psychology conduct a dialogue with each other
home, are reflected in each other, discover in themselves the general and special
something that brings them together or alienates them. Thus, before us is the month-
then the “meetings” of these theories.
Until now, none of the general psychological theories could
declare itself as a theory truly general in relation to
approach to cumulative psychological knowledge and the conditions for its acquisition
retention. Theoretical psychology is initially focused on
building a similar system of scientific knowledge in the future. At that
time as material for the development of special psychological
History of psycho-
gical science
and historicism theoretically
skoy psychology
theories and concepts are facts obtained empirically and
generalized in concepts (the first stage of psychological cognition
theory), the material of theoretical psychology is these very theories.
ories and concepts (second stage) that arise in specific
historical conditions.
Inextricably linked areas of psychology
scientific science - history of psychology and theory
rhetic psychology is nevertheless
differ significantly in the subject of research
dovaniya. The tasks of the historian of psychology
stand in tracing the development paths of research and their theoretical
formalization in connection with the vicissitudes of civil history and
in interaction with related areas of knowledge. Psychic historian
chology follows from one period of the formation of science to another, from
characteristics of the views of one prominent scientist to the analysis of views
niya of the other. In contrast, theoretical psychology uses
the principle of historicism for the analytical consideration of the results
tata of the development of science at each of its (development) stages, due to the fact
then the components of modern theoretical
knowledge of the most significant characteristics and approaches. History
for these purposes, technical material is used to carry out technical
cultural barriers turned out to be very poorly represented in the world
psychological science. At the same time, those proposed for consideration
The basis of theoretical psychology could be built on
material obtained by analyzing American, French,
German or some other psychology. The legality of the trust
This view can be explained by the fact that in Russian
psychological psychology actually turned out to be reflected (with all the labor -
problems of their relay through the “Iron Curtain”) the main principles
boards of psychological thought represented in the world
science. This refers to the work of Russian psychologists
THEM. Sechenova, I.P. Pavlova, V.A. Wagner, S.L. Rubinstein,
L.S. Vygotsky. It is precisely the invariance of theoretical psycho-
gia makes it possible to consider it within the existing
and scientific schools and directions that have not lost their significance.
Therefore, there is no basis for characterizing theoretical psychology.
idea to use the name “history of psychology” and in the same
at least a “theory of psychology,” although both history and theories of psychology
are included in its composition.
Metaphysics In 1971 M.G. Yaroshevsky introduced
and psychology, in contrast to the traditional concept of general
general forms of being and knowledge, the concept of “categorical structure”
psychological science." This innovation was not the result
speculative constructions. Studying the history of psychology,
M.G Yaroshevsky turned to the analysis of the reasons for the collapse of some
psychological schools and movements. It turned out that their co-
the creators turned out to be focused on one relatively iso-
lated, obviously a priority for psychological researchers
gical phenomenon (for example, behaviorism based its
their views, behavior, action; Gestalt psychology - image
etc.). Thus, in the fabric of psychological reality they im-
supposedly one invariant “universal” was explicitly identified,
which became the basis for the construction of the corresponding theory
in all its branches. This made it possible, on the one hand, easier
build a logic for the development of the research system, the transition from one
them experimentally verified statements to others, confidently
but predictable. On the other hand, this narrowed the scope of application
tion of the original principles, since it was not based on foundations,
which were the starting point for other schools and directions. Introduction
tegorial system as the basis on which the basic
psychological concepts were of fundamental importance. Like
in all sciences, in psychology, categories were the most general
and fundamental definitions covering the most
social properties and relationships of the phenomena being studied. Apply
to the countless number of psychological concepts, highlighting
The identified and described basic categories were system-forming
mi, allowing us to build categories of a higher order -
"attitude", born, respectively, in Gestalt psychology,
psychoanalysis, behaviorism, interactionism, to “metapsychology”
nie", "value", "activity", "communication", etc. If the basic
"Yaroshevsky M.G. Psychology in the 20th century. M., 1971.
"The possibility of expanding the categorical
building psychology beyond the basic and metapsychological levels, which
allows us to judge the “protopsychological” preceding the basic level
Van in the final section of the book, where a general categorical
nal system of psychology, which includes 4 levels (24 psychological
Identification along with the “basic” metapsychological categories
ries and the corresponding ontological models allows re-
to move towards the most complete comprehension and explanation of the psychological
skaya reality. On this path, the opportunity opens up to consider
understand theoretical psychology as a scientific discipline that has
metaphysical character. Moreover, metaphysics is understood here
not in the traditional Marxist sense, which interpreted it as
the opposite of dialectic philosophical method (consideration
characteristic of the phenomenon in their immutability and independence from each other
ha, which denies internal contradictions as a source of development).
Meanwhile, this flat approach to understanding metaphysics, games
orienting its real meaning, rooted in the teachings of Ari-
Stotel, can and should be replaced by an appeal to the ideas of Russian-
th philosopher Vladimir Solovyov. From the point of view of V. Solovyov,
metaphysics is primarily the study of essences and phenomena,
naturally replacing each other, coinciding and not coinciding -
talking to each other. From the point of view of V. Solovyov, the opposite
the difference between essence and appearance does not stand up to criticism - does not
only epistemological, but also simply logical. These two concepts
have a correlative and formal meaning for him. Phenomenon
reveals, reveals its essence, and the essence reveals
appears, manifests itself in its appearance - and at the same time what is
essence in a certain respect or at a certain level of cognition
tion, there is only a phenomenon in a different relation or at a different stage -
no knowledge. Turning to psychology, V. Solovyov emphasized
(we use his typical phraseology below):<...>
action is the appearance or discovery of my hidden states
thoughts, feelings and wills that are not directly given
to the outside observer and in this sense represent for him a non-
which "unknowable essence">. However (according to V. Solovyov) she
is known precisely through its external appearance; but this psychological
a real essence, for example a certain act of will, is only a manifest
a general character or mental make-up, which in turn
is not the final essence, but only a manifestation of more
deep - soulful - being (intelligible character-
ra-according to I. Kant), which is indisputably indicated by the facts of morality
natural crises and rebirths. Thus, in the external
and in the inner world to carry out a certain and constant program
the difference between essence and appearance, and consequently between pre-
method of metaphysics and positive in science is completely impossible.
it is possible, and their unconditional opposition is a clear mistake.
The metaphysical views of Vladimir Solovyov are more important
neck value for understanding the explanatory principle of construction
mountains of a higher order. In the final section of the book
they are called extrapsychological.
Metaphysics - in the understanding of Vladimir Solovyov - can become
subject of special attention when developing a system of theoretical
skoy psychology.
By identifying categorical
systems of psychology ^ the historian of psychology has the opportunity to go
as a developer of theoretical psychology.
Formulating as one of the principles of theoretical psychology
chology the principle of openness of the categorical system, research
whether they get the opportunity to expand basic categories due to
psychological understanding of other concepts appearing in
psychology, and thus new dyads can be built:
Shevsky when characterizing the categorical structure of psychology, in
this book is joined by two more - “experience” and “in-
division". Metapsychological development of these categories (based on
other, basic ones) can be found, respectively, in such
categories such as "feeling" and "I".
So, at the moment, the development of problems of theoretical psychology
chology, the possibility of an upward movement may be noted
specification of basic psychological categories in the direction
research on metapsychological categories of varying degrees of generalization
ness and specificity. The following series of hypotheticals emerges:
logical coo^vec^R^^and interbasic and metapsychological qualities
categories:
Image -> Consciousness
Motive -> Value
Experience -> Feeling
Action -> Activity
Attitude -> Communication
Individual -> I
* Together with V.A. Petrovsky.
16
The relationship between basic and metapsychological, defined below,
This metapsychological category reveals some basic
"system quality"). While in each of the basic categories
"unfolding" of these latent formations. Relationships between
wearing Leibnizian monads: each reflects each. If
try to metaphorically express the relationship between
but remember about the hologram: “part of the hologram (basic category-
ria) contains the whole (metapsychological category).
To be convinced of this, just look at any fragment of this
"holograms" from a certain angle of view.
Logically, each metapsychological category
ria is a subject-predicative construction, in which
In the second, the position of the subject is occupied by some basic category
there is no correlation between this basic category and other basic categories.
categories (“motive”, “action”, “attitude”, “experience”
appears as the development of the basic psychological category “image”,
form in the metapsychological category “activity”, etc. Ba-
turns into metapsychological, let’s denote it as “formalizing-
"("specifying"). The formal relationship between the ba-
are connected here by vertical lines, and the “designing” ones are connected by
clonal) (see p. 18).
From the above figure it is clear that in accordance with the principle
gy a number of basic psychological categories, as well as a number of metaps-
chological, open. Three versions can be offered, belt-
understanding this.
Metapsychological categories
^- "^"^. , ^ ^ ^"- "
^^ ^^" "^ , - " ^ ^"
~- "" "" ","*~, - "^"""^ "^ ^ ^""
""" - "-^"^"^ ""^""^^""
Basic psychological categories
Rice. 1. Basic (core) categories are connected
with metapsychological thick vertical lines,
and the decorative ones - thin slanted
1. Some psychological categories (both basic and me-
tapsychological) have not yet been studied, have not been identified as
chological concepts they appear as “work-
ing" concepts.
2. Some categories are born only today; like all,
arising “here and now”, they are still beyond
affairs of current self-reflection of science.
3. Some of the psychological categories will appear throughout
probabilities, in private psychological theories over time,
in order to someday become part of the categories of theoretical
skoy psychology.
The proposed method of ascent to metapsychological qualities
categories based on basic level categories further briefly
illustrated by the example of the correlation of some categories, in
already defined in psychology to one degree or another.
Image -> Consciousness. Is “consciousness” really a me-
tapsychological equivalent of the basic category “image”?
In recent literature, opinions have been expressed that exclude
who have a similar version. It is argued that consciousness is not like
believed, for example, A.N. Leontyev, “in its spontaneity...
the picture of the world that opens to the subject, in which he is included
himself, his actions and states,” and is not “an attitude to action
cohesion", but there is a "relationship in reality itself", "consistency
the totality of relations in a system of other relations”, “has no in-
dividual existence or individual representative
"In other words, consciousness is supposedly not an image - emphasis
18
transferred to the "attitude" category. A similar look to us
seems to follow from a limited understanding of the cat-
goria "image". The connection between the concept of “image” and having
centuries-old tradition in the history of philosophical and psychological
in Russian thought the concept of “idea”. An idea is an image (thought) in action,
a productive representation that forms its object. The idea is pre-
the opposition of the subjective and the objective is overcome. And therefore
It is quite reasonable to think that “ideas create the world.” Revealing in the image
that which characterizes it in terms of its effectiveness (and therefore
motives, relationships, experiences of the individual), we define it as
consciousness. So, consciousness is a holistic image of reality
(which in turn means the area of human action), re-
representing the motives and attitudes of the individual and including
his self-experience, along with the experience of the outsideness of the world,
in which the subject exists. So, the logical core of the definition
"experience", "individual".
Motive -> Value. "Strength test" of the idea of ascending
from abstract (basic) to concrete (metapsychological)
in accordance with this basic category (“semantic education”?
"significance"? "value orientations"? "value"?). However
with all the certainty that all these concepts are in
names with each other and at the same time correlate with the category “mo-
tive", they cannot - for various reasons - be considered metapsycho-
logical equivalent of the latter. One of the solutions to this problem is
of this person, we wonder about the hidden motives
his behavior, but the motive itself does not have value. For example
measures, you can feel attracted to something or someone and
at the same time, to be ashamed of this feeling. Are these motives
"values"? Yes, but only in the sense that these are “negative
values." This phrase must be recognized as a production
different from the original - "positive" - interpretation of the category "valuable"
ity" (they talk about "material and spiritual, objective and subjective
technical, cognitive and moral values”, etc., etc.).
Thus, value is not just a motive, but a motive, a characteristic
occupied by a certain place in the system of self-relations of the subject.
The motive, considered as a value, appears in the consciousness of
division as an essential characteristic of its (individual’s) existence
niya in the world. We are faced with a similar understanding of value
both in everyday and scientific consciousness (“value” in ordinary
usage means “a phenomenon, an object that has something or
different meaning, important, significant in some respect";
philosophically, the normative-evaluative character is emphasized
character of "value"). What is valuable is that a person, according to Hegel,
recognizes as his own. However, before the motive appears before the individual,
house as a value, an assessment must be made, and sometimes re-
reassessment of the role that motive plays or can play in the process
processes of individual self-realization. In other words, in order to
if the motive were included by the individual in the image of himself and appeared as such
way, as a value, the individual must realize a certain
action (value self-determination). The result of this action
is not only the image of the motive, but also the experience of the soldered motive
the individual as an important and integral “part” of himself.
At the same time, value is what is valued in the eyes of a given individual.
can also be used by other people, that is, it has a motivating force for them.
loy. Through values, an individual personalizes (gains
its ideal representation and continuation of communication).
Motives-values, being hidden, are actively revealed
in communication, serving to “open up” those communicating to each other.
category of "relationships", considered not only in the internal,
but also on the external plane. So, value is a motive that
the process of self-determination is considered and experienced by the individual
view as its own inalienable “part”, which forms the basis
“self-presentation” (personalization) of the subject in communication.
Experience -> Feeling. The category "experience" (in a broad
sense of the word) can be considered as nuclear in the construction of me-
Bakh general psychology" distinguished between primary and specific "pe-
rezhivanie". In the first meaning (we consider it as a definition
dividing to establish one of the basic psychological ca-
categories) “experience” is considered as an essential characteristic
mentality, the quality of “belonging” to the individual that
constitutes the “internal content” of his life; S.L. Rubinstein,
speaking about the primacy of such an experience, he distinguished it from the experience
vaniya "in a specific, emphasized sense of the word"; latest
have an eventful character, expressing “uniqueness” and “significance”
"responsibility" of something in the inner life of the individual. Such transitions
living, in our opinion, constitute what can be called
feeling. Special analysis of texts by S.L. Rubinstein could
show that the path of formation of event experience (“feelings”)
") is the path of mediation: the primary transformation that forms it
living appears in its conditioning from the outside
image, motive, action, relationship of the individual. Considering this
Thus, “experience” (in the broad sense) as a basic category
can be considered as a metapsychological category.
Action -> Activity. Metapsychological equivalent
This book develops the view that activity
represents a holistic internally differentiated (meaning
having an initially collective-distributive nature)
self-valuable action - such an action, source, goal, means and re-
the result of which lies in itself. Source
The name of the activity is the motives of the individual, its goal is the image
possible, as a prototype of what will happen, its means -
mi - actions towards intermediate goals and, finally, its
the result is the experience of the relationships that develop in the individual
with the world (in particular, relationships with other people).
Attitude -> Communication. The category "relationships" is a systemic
formative (nuclear) for the construction of a metapsychological
category "communication". "To communicate" means to relate to each other,
consolidating existing or forming new relationships. Consti-
the defining characteristic of relationships is the assumption
positions of another subject ("playing out" his role) and the ability
combine in thoughts and feelings your own vision of the situation and
another's point of view. This is possible through making certain
ny actions. The purpose of these actions is the production of common (something
"third" in relation to communicating). Among these actions
distinguished: communicative acts (exchange of information), acts
decentration (putting oneself in the place of another) and personalization
(achieving subjective reflection in another). Subjective level
the vein of reflection contains a holistic image-experience
another person, creating additional benefits for his partner
awakenings (motives).
Individual -> Self. In the logic of “ascent from the abstract to the concrete”
basic in the construction of the metapsychological category “I”.
The basis of such a view is formed by the idea of self-identity of information.
division as an essential characteristic of his “I”. At the same time, it is preferable
It is assumed that the individual’s experience and perception of his self-
YYY
identities form an internal and integral characteristic
tistics of his “I”: the individual strives to maintain his own
integrity, protect, and therefore realize
a special attitude towards oneself and another, carrying out certain actions
actions. In a word, “I” is the identity of the individual with himself, given
him in the image and experience of himself and forming the motive for his actions
and relationships.
Into the content of theoretical psychology
Key problems, along with the categorical system, include its
and explanatory basic explanatory principles: de-
principles of psychology, terminism, development, systematicity. Yavlya-
being general scientific in its significance,
they allow us to understand the nature and character of specific psychological
ical phenomena and patterns.
The principle of determinism reflects the natural dependence
the power of phenomena from the factors that generate them. This principle in psi-
chology allows us to identify the factors that determine the most important
characteristics of the human psyche, revealing their dependence on
giving birth conditions rooted in his being. In the appropriate
chapter of the book characterizes various types and forms of determinism
tions of psychological phenomena that explain their origin
and features.
The principle of development allows us to understand personality precisely
evolving, successively passing phases, periods, eras
and the era of formation of its essential characteristics. In this case, it is necessary
We must emphasize the organic relationship and interdependence
the power of explanatory principles adopted by theoretical psycho-
logic as determinants.
The principle of consistency is not a declaration, not a fashionable word -
use, as happened in Russian psychology in the 70s
80s. Consistency presupposes the presence of a system-forming
principle, which, for example, when applied in the psychology of development
development of personality, makes it possible to understand the characteristics of development
developing personality based on the use of the concept of active
mediation, acting as a system-forming principle.
Thus, the explanatory principles of psychology remain
in indissoluble unity, without which it is impossible to form
research on the methodology of scientific knowledge in psychology. Explainer-
The principles in psychology underlie the proposed
the final section of the book of the categorical system as the core of the
oretic psychology.
Key problems of theoretical psychology (psychophysical
skaya, psychophysiological, psychognostic, psychosocial,
psychopraxic) to the same extent as categories form
The row is open for possible further additions. Arose-
forming at virtually every stage of the historical path
of psychological knowledge, they have the greatest impact on
were dependent on the state of related sciences: philosophy (formerly
of all epistemology), hermeneutics, physiology, as well as social
no practice. For example, a psychophysiological problem varies
antakh its solution (psychophysical parallelism, interaction,
unity) bears the imprint of philosophical discussions between
supporters of the dualistic and monistic worldview and
success in developing a body of knowledge in the field of psychophysiology.
By emphasizing the key nature of these problems, we distinguish them from
countless number of particular issues and problems solved in different
personal areas and branches of psychology. Key issues in this
connections could rightfully be considered as “classical”, non-
have arisen variably over two thousand years of history
theoretical as support for building the foundations of theoretical
psychological psychology and thereby constitutional
establishing it as a branch of psychology, nevertheless
do not exhaust its contents,
You can name specific problems, the solution of which leads to
towards the creation of a system of theoretical psychology as a full-fledged
scientific industry. In the field of view there is a relationship between objects
and methods of psychological research, criterial assessment
about the validity of psychological concepts, identifying the place
psychology in the system of scientific knowledge, causes of occurrence,
the rise and fall of psychological schools, the relationship between scientific
psychological knowledge and esoteric teachings and much more.
In a number of cases, rich material has been accumulated to solve these problems.
tasks. It is enough to point to the work in the field of psychology of science.
However, the integration of the results of theoretical research, research
panels on various monographs, textbooks, manuals,
given in Russia and abroad, has not yet been implemented.
In this regard, the theoretical
grounds for the circulation of industries, scientific schools, various
currents of psychology to themselves, their own fundamental
niyam.
In its essence, theoretical psychology contrasts
part of practical psychology, nevertheless organically with it
connected. It allows you to separate what meets the requirements for
scientific validity from non-scientific speculative
tions. In Russian psychology of recent years, all this represents
is especially important.
Theoretical psychology should form a strict attitude
taking into account the use of explanatory principles presented by
contain in them basic, metapsychological and other categories, let-
solutions to key scientific problems. In order to go
from studying and considering the foundations of theoretical psychology to
structure of its system, it is necessary to identify the system-forming
principle. In the recent past, this issue would have been resolved with greater
"lightness". A similar principle would be declared to be philosophical
phy of Marxism-Leninism, although this would not advance the solution
Problems. The point, obviously, is not that he could not perform in this role.
drink, for example, historical materialism, which was once dominant
general ideology, but that the system-forming principle of the theoretical
psychological psychology cannot be completely and completely
extracted from other philosophical teachings. It must be found in
the very fabric of psychological knowledge, especially its self-consciousness
knowledge and self-realization. This is undoubtedly a task that
Theorists of psychology are called upon to decide.
Part 1.
PROLEGOMENA
TO THEORETICAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL
RESEARCH.
Fundamentals of theoretical psychology
1998. - 528 p.ISBN 5-86225-812-4
M.: INFRA-M,
In the multi-level system of psychological training developed by the authors of the book and the corresponding series of textbooks (Russian Federation Government Prize in the field of education 1997), theoretical psychology forms the upper level of this system. Textbook by A.V. Petrovsky and M.G. Yaroshevsky's "Fundamentals of Theoretical Psychology" characterizes its subject, categorical structure, explanatory principles and key problems. The textbook is intended for pedagogical universities and university psychology departments.
The authors of the book are famous psychologists, academicians of the Russian Academy of Education, whose books have been published and republished not only in Russian, but also in many foreign languages.
ISBN 5-86225-812-4
UDC 159.9(075.8) BBK88
c Petrovsky A.V., Yaroshevsky M.G., 1998
The book offers readers (senior-year students of pedagogical universities and psychological faculties of universities, as well as graduate students of psychology departments) a holistic and systematized consideration of the foundations of theoretical psychology as a special branch of science.
The textbook continues and develops the issues contained in the previous works of the authors (Yaroshevsky M.G. History of Psychology, 3rd ed., 1985; Yaroshevsky M.G. Psychology of the 20th Century, 2nd ed., 1974; Petrovsky A.V. , Issues in the history and theory of psychology. Selected works, 1984; Petrovsky A.V., Yaroshevsky M.G. History of psychology, 1995; ; Yaroshevsky M.G. Historical psychology of science, 1996).
The book examines: the subject of theoretical psychology, psychological cognition as an activity, historicism of theoretical analysis, categorical structure, explanatory principles and key problems of psychology. At its core, “Fundamentals of Theoretical Psychology” is a textbook intended for completing a full course in psychology in higher educational institutions.
The introductory chapter “Theoretical psychology as a field of psychological science” and chapters 9, I 1, 14 were written by A.V. Petrovsky; Chapter 10- V.A. Petrovsky; chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 - M.G. Yaroshevsky; the final chapter “The categorical system is the core of theoretical psychology” was written jointly by A.V. Petrovsky, V.A. Petrovsky, M.G. Yaroshevsky.
The authors will gratefully accept comments and suggestions that will contribute to further scientific work in the field of theoretical psychology.
Prof. A.V. Petrovsky Prof. M.G. Yaroshevsky
Chapter 2. Historicism of theoretical-psychological analysis...... The evolution of theories as a subject of special study... The problem of analyzing psychological theories
Table of contents
From the authors
Theoretical psychology as a field of psychological science (introductory chapter) Subject of theoretical psychology
History of psychological science and historicism of theoretical psychology................... Metaphysics and psychology...... .... Categorical structure of psychology
Key problems and explanatory principles of psychology......
From the basics - to the system of theoretical psychology....
PART 1. Prolegomena to theoretical-psychological
research
Chapter 1. Psychological cognition as an activity Science is a special form of knowledge.................................... Theory and empiricism........................................................ ......... From subject knowledge to activity.................... Scientific activity in the three-coordinate system...... Social dimension. ...................................................
The logic of the development of science.
Logic and psychology of scientific creativity............. Communication is the coordinate of science as an activity..... Schools in science............ ........
Reasons for the collapse of scientific schools................................. The emergence of new schools........... ......................... School as a direction in science................... ................ Personality of the scientist................................... ......................... Ideogenesis.................................... ................................................ Categorical apperception .. Intrinsic motivation...
Opponent circle................................................... ...Individual cognitive style......Supraconscious............................. ...................................
..3
10 10
13
14 16
22
23
25
25 25 25 27 32 34 37 44 48 51 53 56
62
63
64 67 69 75 78 80
Prerequisites for changing learning theories................................. Two paths in the science of behavior........ .................................... Behavioral sciences......... ................................................... Cognitivism ........................................................ .......................... Historical vector
PART II. Basic categories of psychology
Chapter 3. Theoretical and categorical in the system of science.... Theory and its categorical basis................................... ...... Unity of invariant and variant.
The system of categories and its individual blocks..................... The origins of the crisis in psychology............................ .......... Categories of psychology and its problems........ Categories and specific scientific concepts Historicism of categorical analysis
Chapter 4. Image category........ Sensory and mental
Primary and secondary qualities. Image as a similarity to an object Image and association....
The problem of constructing an image......... Intention as the actualization of an image Concepts as names............................... The problem of an image in mechanistic picture of the world......... Influence of physiology.................................... ........................ Image and action........
Introspective interpretation of the image Integrity of the image..................... Mental image and word....... Image and information.... .............
Chapter 5. Action category
General concept of action................................... Action of consciousness and action of the body Association as an intermediary link
Unconscious mental actions
Muscle as an organ of cognitive action......... From sensorimotor action to intellectual........... Interiorization of actions...... ..
Installation.........................................
Chapter 6. Category of motive Localization of motive.....
Affect and reason................... The problem of will.......
Natural and moral...... Motive in the structure of personality.... Motive and field of behavior.......... Dominant.
Overcoming the postulate about the equilibrium of the organism with the environment
Chapter 7. Category of relationship......... The variety of types of relationships The role of relationships in psychology
Attitude as a basic category
Chapter 8. Category of experience......... Experience and personality development. Experience and the subject of psychology Experience as a cultural phenomenon.................................
PART III. Metapsychological categories Chapter 9. Personality category..................
The formation of the concept of “personality” in psychology. “The existence of personality” as a psychological problem................................... L.S. Vygotsky about personality
"Dialogical" model of understanding personality: advantages and limitations....................................... Need " be a person"
The need for personalization and motives of individual behavior.................................................... .......Personality in communication and activity.................... Personality mentality.................. ................................. Personality theory from the standpoint of categorical analysis of psychology......... .......................................... Postulates of personality theory..... .
Methodological foundations of personality theory... Ontological model of personality....................................
Giava 10. Category of activity.................... Activity as the “substance” of activity....... Internal organization of activity External organization of activity....
185
186
187 187 189 191 191 194
199
204
204
205 207
209 212 216 216
,223
223 223
227 236
241 246
248
252
253
257
259
260 264
270 270 275 282
Unity of external and internal organization of activity ........................... Self-propulsion of activity
Chapter II. Category of communication
Communication as information exchange
Communication as interpersonal interaction Communication as people’s understanding of each other.. “Significant other” in the system of interpersonal relationships
Role behavior theory
Development of experimental social psychology...... The principle of activity-based mediation of relationships between people in a group......
Multilevel structure of interpersonal relationships... Theory and empirics in the psychology of interpersonal relationships.................................................... ......................................... Group cohesion and compatibility
Cohesion from the perspective of the activity approach......... Levels of group compatibility.
Origins and psychological characteristics of leadership.
Classical leadership theories
Leadership from the perspective of the theory of activity mediation....................................
Leader Trait Theory Revisited
Leadership in the system of reference relations....................................
PART IV. Explanatory principles of psychology. Chapter 12. The principle of determinism
Pre-mechanical determinism Mechanical determinism
Biological determinism Mental determinism
Macrosocial determinism
Microsocial determinism...
Chapter 13. The principle of consistency....................... Holism......
Elementarism......... Eclecticism...................
Reductionism......................................... External methodologism
The emergence of a systemic understanding of the psyche
The machine as an image of systematicity System "organism - environment"
The origin of the principle of systematicity in psychology Ring regulation of the work of the body system. Mental regulation of behavior Systematicity in psychoanalysis,
Model of neuroses at school I.P. Pavlova Systematicity and expediency
Systematicity and the problem of learning Gestaltism
Sign system System development
Systematicity in the research of J. Piaget Systematic approach to activity..... The principle of systematicity and cybernetics
Gyaava 14. Principle of development.................................
Development of the psyche in phylogenesis.................................. The role of heredity and environment in mental development.... ......................................... Development of the psyche and personality development. The problem of leading activities
Historicism in the analysis of the problem of leading activity Social-psychological concept of personality development
Model of personality development in a relatively stable environment.
Model of personality development. Age periodization
PART V. Key problems of psychology
Chapter 15. Psychophysical problem.................................... Monism, dualism and pluralism
The soul as a way of assimilating the external
Transformation of Aristotle's teachings into Thomism Appeal to optics
Mechanics and changing concepts of soul and body
Hypothesis of psychophysical interaction.................. Innovative version of Spinoza.
Psychophysical parallelism...........
A single origin of the physical, physiological and mental
Advances in physics and the doctrine of parallelism
374 377 379 382 384 387 387 389
392
393 396
399
400
402
403
408 410
421
425 434
437
445 449
456 456
456
457
459
460
462
463 463
465
466
467
Psychophysics
Psychophysical monism physical stimulus as a signal Noosphere as a special shell of the planet
Epava 16. Psychophysiological problem The concept of pneuma
The doctrine of temperaments............. The brain or the heart - the organ of the soul? "General Sensitivity" Mechanism of Associations
The significance of problems discovered during the period of antiquity. Mechanism and a new explanation of the relationship between soul and body.............
The concept of irritability................. The doctrine of nervous vibrations and the unconscious psyche.................................... ...................................
Separation of reflex and the principle of material conditioning of behavior..................................... Return to reflex as act of holistic behavior......................................................... ....................... "Anatomical beginning".................................... .......... Transition to neurodynamics.................................. ... Alarm function...................................................
Chapter 17. Psychognostic problem Contours of the problem..... Knowledge about the mental
Subjective and objective Reflection on scientific knowledge
The categorical system is the core of theoretical psychology (instead of a conclusion)
Literature
Theoretical psychology as a field of psychological science (introductory chapter)
Subject The subject of theoretical psychology is a self-referential theoretical lecture of psychological science, revealing and is-psychology following its categorical structure (protopsychic, basic, metapsychological, extra-psychological categories), explanatory principles (determinism, systematicity, development), key problems arising on the historical path of development of psychology (psychophysical, psychophysiological, psychognostic, etc.), as well as psychological cognition itself as a special type of activity.
The term “theoretical psychology” is found in the works of many authors, but it has not been used to formulate a special scientific field.
Elements of theoretical psychology, included in the context of both general psychology and its applied branches, are presented in the works of Russian and foreign scientists.
Many aspects concerning the nature and structure of psychological cognition were analyzed. The self-reflection of science intensified during crisis periods of its development. Thus, at one of the boundaries of history, namely at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th century, discussions flared up about what method of concept formation psychology should focus on - either what is accepted in the natural sciences, or what belongs to to culture. Subsequently, issues related to the subject area of psychology, in contrast to other sciences and specific methods of its study, were discussed from various positions. Topics such as the relationship between theory and empirics, the effectiveness of explanatory principles used in the range of psychological problems, the significance and priority of these problems themselves, etc. were repeatedly touched upon. The most significant contribution to the enrichment of scientific ideas about the uniqueness of psychological science itself, its composition and structure was made by Russian researchers Soviet period P.P. Blonsky, L.S. Vygotsky, M.Ya. Basov, SL. Rubinstein, B.M. Teplov. However, its components have not yet been isolated from the content of various branches of psychology, where they existed with other material (concepts, methods of study, historical information, practical applications, etc.). So, S.L. Rubinstein, in his major work “Fundamentals of General Psychology,” gives an interpretation of various solutions to the psychophysical problem and examines the concept of psychophysiological parallelism, interaction, and unity. But this range of questions n6 acts as the subject of study of a special branch, different from general psychology, which is primarily addressed to the analysis of mental processes and states. Theoretical psychology, therefore, did not act for him (as for other scientists) as a special integral scientific discipline.
A feature of the formation of theoretical psychology at the present time is the contradiction between its already established components (categories, principles, problems) and its non-representation as an integral field, as a system of psychological categories. The authors tried to eliminate the noted contradiction in this book. At the same time, if it were called “Theoretical Psychology,” this would presuppose the completeness of the formation of the field thus designated. In reality, we are dealing with the “openness” of this scientific field to include many new links. In this regard, it is advisable to talk about the “foundations of theoretical psychology,” meaning the further development of problems that ensure the integrity of the scientific field.
In the context of theoretical psychology, the problem of the relationship between empirical knowledge and its theoretical generalization arises. At the same time, the process of psychological cognition itself is considered as a special type of activity. Hence, in particular, the problem of the relationship between objective research methods and introspection data also arises. The theoretically complex question has repeatedly arisen about what introspection actually provides, whether the results of introspection can be considered on a par with what can be obtained by objective methods (B.M. Teplov). Doesn't it turn out that, looking into himself, a person deals not with the analysis of mental processes and states, but only with the external world, which is reflected and presented in them?
An important aspect of the branch of psychology under consideration is its predictive capabilities. Theoretical knowledge is a system of not only statements, but also predictions regarding the emergence of various phenomena, transitions from one
statements to another without direct reference to sensory experience.
The separation of theoretical psychology into a special sphere of scientific knowledge is due to the fact that psychology is capable, on its own, relying on its own achievements and guided by its own values, to comprehend the origins of its formation and development prospects. We still remember those times when “methodology decided everything,” although the processes of the emergence and application of methodology may have had nothing to do with psychology in society. Many still maintain the belief that the subject of psychology and its main categories can initially be taken from somewhere outside - from the field of extra-psychological knowledge. A huge number of widespread methodological developments devoted to problems of activity, consciousness, communication, personality, development, were written by philosophers, but at the same time addressed specifically to psychologists. The latter were charged with a special vision of their tasks - in the spirit of the quite appropriate question at the end of the 19th century, “Who and how to develop psychology?”, that is, in the search for those areas of scientific knowledge (philosophy, physiology, theology, sociology, etc.) who would create psychological science. Of course, psychology’s search within itself for the sources of its growth, “branching,” flourishing and emergence of sprouts of new theories would be absolutely unthinkable without psychologists turning to special philosophical, cultural, natural science and sociological works. However, despite the importance of the support that non-psychological disciplines provide to psychology, they are not able to replace the work of self-determination of psychological thought. Theoretical psychology responds to this challenge: it forms an image of itself by looking at its past, present and future.
Theoretical psychology is not equal to the sum of psychological theories. Like any whole, it is more than a collection of its parts. Various theories and concepts within theoretical psychology conduct a dialogue with each other, are reflected in each other, discover in themselves what is common and special that brings them together or alienates them. Thus, before us is the meeting place of these theories.
Until now, none of the general psychological theories could declare itself as a theory that is truly general in relation to cumulative psychological knowledge and the conditions for its acquisition. Theoretical psychology is initially focused on building such a system of scientific knowledge in the future. While the material for the development of special psychological
History of psychological science and historicism of theoretical psychology
theories and concepts are facts obtained empirically and generalized in concepts (the first stage of psychological knowledge); the material of theoretical psychology is these theories and concepts themselves (the second stage), arising in specific historical conditions. Inextricably linked areas of psychological science - the history of psychology and theoretical psychology - nevertheless differ significantly in the subject of study. The tasks of a historian of psychology are to trace the development of research and its theoretical formulation in connection with the vicissitudes of civil history and in interaction with related fields of knowledge. The historian of psychology follows from one period of the development of science to another, from characterizing the views of one prominent scientist to analyzing the views of another. In contrast, theoretical psychology uses the principle of historicism to analytically consider the result of the development of science at each of its (development) stages, as a result of which the components of modern theoretical knowledge become clear in the most significant characteristics and approaches. For these purposes, historical material is used to carry out theoretical analysis.
Therefore, the authors considered it appropriate to turn first of all to the activities of Russian psychologists, whose works, due to ideological obstacles, turned out to be very poorly represented in world psychological science. At the same time, the foundations of theoretical psychology proposed for consideration could be built on material obtained by analyzing American, French, German or some other psychology. The legitimacy of such a view can be explained by the fact that in Russian psychology the main directions of psychological thought presented in world science actually turned out to be reflected (with all the difficulties of their relay through the “Iron Curtain”). This refers to the work of Russian psychologists I.M. Sechenova, I.P. Pavlova, V.A. Wagner, S.L. Rubinshteina, L.S. Vygotsky. It is the invariance of theoretical psychology that makes it possible to consider it within currently existing scientific schools and directions that have not lost their significance. Therefore, to characterize theoretical psychology, there is no reason to use the name “history of psychology” and, to the same extent, “theory of psychology,” although both history and theories of psychology are included in its composition.
Metaphysics and Psychology
In 1971 M.G. Yaroshevsky introduced, in contrast to the traditional concept of general philosophical categories covering universal forms of being and knowledge, the concept of the “categorical structure of psychological science.” This innovation was not the result of speculative constructions. While studying the history of psychology, M. G. Yaroshevsky turned to analysis reasons for the collapse of some psychological schools and movements. At the same time, it turned out that their creators turned out to be focused on one relatively isolated psychological phenomenon, obviously a priority for researchers (for example, behaviorism based its views on behavior, action; Gestalt psychology - image, etc. Thus, in the fabric of psychological reality they implicitly identified one invariant “universal”, which became the basis for constructing the corresponding theory in all its branches. This made it easier, on the one hand, to build the logic of the development of a system of research, the transition from some experimental ones. verified statements to others that are confidently predicted. On the other hand, this narrowed the scope of application of the original principles, since it was not based on the foundations that were the starting point for other schools and directions. The introduction of the categorical system as the basis on which basic psychological concepts are developed was of fundamental importance. As in all sciences, in psychology categories acted as the most general and fundamental definitions, covering the most essential properties and relationships of the phenomena being studied. In relation to countless psychological concepts, the identified and described basic categories were system-forming, allowing the construction of categories of a higher order - metapsychological categories (according to A. V. Petrovsky). While the basic categories are: “image”, “motive”, “action”, “attitude”, born, respectively, in Gestalt psychology, psychoanalysis, behaviorism, interactionism, the “metapsychological categories” can be attributed, respectively, “consciousness”, “value”, “activity”, “communication”, etc. If the basic
"Yaroshevsky M.G. Psychology in the 20th century. M., 1971. "The possibility of expanding the categorical structure of psychology beyond the basic and categories can also be shown - a kind of “molecule” of psychological knowledge, then metapsychological categories can be compared with “organisms.”
Isolating, along with “basic” categories, metapsychological categories and the ontological models corresponding to them allows us to move on to the most complete comprehension and explanation of psychological reality. On this path, the opportunity opens up to consider theoretical psychology as a scientific discipline of a metaphysical nature. At the same time, metaphysics is not understood here in the traditional sense of Marxism, which interpreted it as a philosophical method opposite to dialectics (considering phenomena in their immutability and independence from each other, denying internal contradictions as a source of development).
Meanwhile, this flat approach to understanding metaphysics, ignoring its real meaning, rooted in the teachings of Aristotle, can and should be replaced by an appeal to the ideas of the Russian philosopher Vladimir Solovyov. From the point of view of V. Solovyov, metaphysics is, first of all, the doctrine of entities and phenomena that naturally replace each other, coincide and do not coincide with each other. From the point of view of V. Solovyov, the opposition between essence and phenomenon does not stand up to criticism - not only epistemological, but also simply logical. These two concepts have a correlative and formal meaning for him. The phenomenon reveals, manifests its essence, and the essence is revealed, manifests itself in its phenomenon - and at the same time, what is an essence in a certain relation or at a certain level of cognition is only a phenomenon in another relation or at another level of cognition. Turning to psychology, V. Solovyov emphasized (we use his typical phraseology below):<...>. However (according to V. Solovyov) it is known precisely through its external appearance; but this psychological essence, for example, a certain act of will, is only a phenomenon of a general character or mental disposition, which in turn is not the final essence, but only a manifestation of a deeper - soulful - being (intelligible character, according to I. Kant), to which facts of moral crises and degenerations indisputably indicate. Thus, in both the external and internal world, it is completely impossible to draw a definite and constant boundary between essence and phenomenon, and, consequently, between the subject of metaphysics and the positive in science, and their unconditional opposition is a clear mistake.
The metaphysical views of Vladimir Solovyov are of utmost importance for understanding the explanatory principle of constructing a categorical system in theoretical psychology. In meta-psychological categories, the essential characteristics of basic categories appear. At the same time, metapsychological categories themselves can act as essential ones for other categories of a higher order. In the final section of the book they are called extrapsychological.
Metaphysics - in the understanding of Vladimir Solovyov - can become the subject of special attention when developing a system of theoretical psychology.
By identifying the categorical structure, the categorical structure of historicism of psychological analysis and the structure of psychology gives the historian of psychology the opportunity to move to the position of a developer of theoretical psychology.
By formulating the principle of openness of the categorical structure as one of the principles of theoretical psychology, researchers have the opportunity to expand basic categories through psychological understanding of other concepts appearing in psychology, and thus new dyads can be built: basic category - metapsychological category. So, for example, to the four basic categories first introduced by M.G. Yaroshevsky, when characterizing the categorical structure of psychology, in this book adds two more - “experience” and “individual”. The metapsychological development of these categories (based on other, basic ones) can be found, respectively, in such categories as “feeling” and “I”.
So, at this moment in the development of problems of theoretical psychology, the possibility of an upward movement in the concretization of basic psychological categories in the direction of metapsychological categories of varying degrees of generality and specificity can be noted. The following series of hypothetical coo^е^c^в^^f^ interbasic and metapsychological categories emerges:
Image -> Consciousness Motive -> Value Experience -) Feeling Action -> Activity Attitude -> Communication Individual -> Self
* Together with V.A. Petrovsky.
The relationship between basic and metapsychological categories defined below can be interpreted as follows: in each metapsychological category, a certain basic psychological category is revealed through its correlation with other basic categories (which makes it possible to identify the “systemic quality” contained in it). While in each of the basic categories each other basic category exists hidden, “collapsed,” each metapsychological category represents an “unfoldment” of these latent formations. The relationship between the basic categories of psychology can be compared to the relationship between Leibnizian monads: each reflects each. If we try to metaphorically express the relationship between basic and metapsychological categories, then it would be appropriate to recall the hologram: “a part of the hologram (basic category) contains the whole (metapsychological category).” To verify this, just look at any fragment of this “hologram” from a certain angle.
Logically, each metapsychological category is a subject-predicative construction, in which the position of the subject is occupied by some basic category (one example: “image” as a basic category in the metapsychological category - “consciousness”), and the predicate is the relation of this basic category with other basic categories ("motive", "action", "attitude", "experience"). Thus, the metapsychological category “consciousness” is considered as a development of the basic psychological category “image”, and, for example, the basic category “action” takes on a specific form in the metapsychological category “activity”, etc. The basic category is in the function of the logical subject of any me -tapsychological category we will call it the “categorical core”; the categories through which this nuclear category is transformed into a metapsychological category will be designated as “formalizing” (“concretizing”). We depict the formal relationship between basic and metapsychological categories in Fig. 1 (with metapsychological categories, “nuclear” categories are connected here by vertical lines, and “formative” categories - by oblique lines) (see p. 18).
From the above figure it is clear that, in accordance with the principle of openness of the categorical system of theoretical psychology, a number of basic psychological categories, as well as a number of metapsychological ones, are open. Three versions can be proposed to explain this.
Metapsychological categories
vD a D y
^ a" a ^ ^
Basic psychological categories
/*is. /. Basic (core) categories are associated with metapsychological thick vertical lines, and formative ones are associated with thin slanted ones
1. Some psychological categories (both basic and metapsychological) have not yet been studied or identified as categories of theoretical psychology, although in private psychological concepts they appear as “working” concepts.
2. Some categories are born only today; like everything that arises “here and now,” they are still outside the scope of the actual self-reflection of science.
3. Some of the psychological categories will appear, in all likelihood, in private psychological theories over time, in order to someday become part of the categories of theoretical psychology.
The proposed method of ascending to metapsychological categories based on categories of the basic level is further briefly illustrated using the example of correlating some categories that have already been defined in psychology to one degree or another.
Image -> Consciousness. Is “consciousness” really the metapsychological equivalent of the basic category “image”? In recent literature, opinions have been expressed that exclude such a version. It is argued that consciousness is not, as A.N. believed, for example. Leontiev, “in its immediacy... the picture of the world that opens to the subject, in which he himself, his actions and states are included,” is not “an attitude to reality,” but is “an attitude in reality itself,” “a set of relations in the system other relations”, “has no individual existence or individual representation”. In other words, consciousness is supposedly not an image - emphasis
"S
transferred to the "attitude" category. Such a view, it seems to us, follows from a limited understanding of the category “image”. The connection between the concept of “image” and the concept of “idea”, which has a centuries-old tradition in the history of philosophical and psychological thought, has been missed. An idea is an image (thought) in action, a productive representation that forms its object. In the idea, the opposition of the subjective and the objective is overcome. And therefore it is quite reasonable to think that “ideas create the world.” By identifying in an image what characterizes it in terms of its effectiveness (and therefore, the motives, relationships, experiences of the individual), we define it as consciousness. So, consciousness is a holistic image of reality (which in turn means the area of human action), realizing the motives and relationships of the individual and including his self-experience, along with the experience of the externality of the world in which the subject exists. So, the logical core of the definition of the category of “consciousness” here is the basic category “image”, and the formative categories are “action”, “motive”, “relationships”, “experience”, “individual”.
Motive -> Value. The “strength test” of the idea of ascent from abstract (basic) to concrete (metapsychological) categories can also be carried out using the example of the development of the category “motive”. In this case, a difficult question arises about which metapsychological category should be put in correspondence with this basic category ("meaning formation"? "significance"? "value orientations"? "value"?). However, while there is no doubt that all these concepts are in overlap with each other and at the same time correlate with the category “motive,” they cannot - for various reasons - be considered a metapsychological equivalent of the latter. One solution to this problem is to involve the category “value”. By asking what the values of this person are, we are asking about the hidden motives of his behavior, but the motive itself is not yet a value. For example, you can feel attracted to something or someone and at the same time be ashamed of this feeling. Are these motivations “values”? Yes, but only in the sense that these are “negative values”. This phrase should be recognized as derived from the original - “positive” - interpretation of the category “value” (they talk about “material and spiritual, objective and subjective, cognitive and moral values”, etc., etc.). Thus, value is not just a motive, but a motive characterized by a certain place in the system of self-relations of the subject. A motive, considered as a value, appears in the mind of an individual as an essential characteristic of his (the individual’s) existence in the world. We are faced with a similar understanding of value both in everyday and scientific consciousness (“value” in ordinary usage means “a phenomenon, an object that has one meaning or another, is important, significant in some respect”; in philosophical terms it emphasizes the normative evaluative nature of "value"). What is valuable is what a person, according to Hegel, recognizes as his own. However, before the motive appears to the individual as a value, an assessment must be made, and sometimes a revaluation of the role that the motive plays or can play in the processes of self-realization of the individual. In other words, in order for a motive to be included by an individual in his self-image and thus act as a value, the individual must carry out a certain action (value self-determination). The result of this action is not only the image of the motive, but also the experience of this motive by the individual as an important and integral “part” of himself. At the same time, value is something that, in the eyes of a given individual, is also valued by other people, that is, it has a motivating force for them. Through values, the individual personalizes (gains his ideal representation and continuity in communication). Motives-values, being hidden, are actively revealed in communication, serving to “open up” those communicating with each other. Thus, the category of “value” is inseparable from the basic category of “relationship”, considered not only in the internal, but also in the external plane. So, value is a motive that, in the process of self-determination, is considered and experienced by the individual as his own inalienable “part,” which forms the basis for the “self-presentation” (personalization) of the subject in communication.
Experience-^Feeling. The category “experience” (in the broad sense of the word) can be considered as nuclear in the construction of the metapsychological category “feeling”. S.L. Rubinstein in “Fundamentals of General Psychology” distinguished between primary and specific “experience”. In the first meaning (we consider it as defining for the establishment of one of the basic psychological categories), “experience” is considered as an essential characteristic of the psyche, the quality of “belonging” to the individual of what constitutes the “inner content” of his life; S.L. Rubinstein, speaking about the primacy of such an experience, distinguished it from experiences “in a specific, emphasized sense of the word”; the latter have an eventful nature, expressing the “uniqueness” and “significance” of something in the inner life of the individual. Such experiences, in our opinion, constitute what can be called
feeling. Special analysis of texts by S.L. Rubinstein could show that the path of formation of an event experience (“feeling”) is a path of mediation: the primary experience that forms it appears in its conditioning on the part of the image, motive, action, and relationships of the individual. Thus, considering “experience” (in a broad sense) as a basic category of psychology, the category “feeling” - in the logic of ascension - can be considered as a metapsychological category.
Action -> Activity. The metapsychological equivalent of the basic category “action” is the category “activity”. This book develops the view according to which activity is a holistic, internally differentiated (originally of a collective-distributive nature) self-valuable action - such an action, the source, goal, means and result of the implementation of which lies in itself. The source of activity is the motives of the individual, its goal is the image of the possible, as a prototype of what will happen, its means are actions in the direction of intermediate goals and, finally, its result is the experience of the relationships that the individual develops with the world (in particular, relationships with others). people).
Attitude -> Communication. The category “relationships” is system-forming (core) for the construction of the metapsychological category “communication”. “To communicate” means to relate to each other, consolidating existing relationships or forming new ones. The constitutive characteristic of relationships is the assumption of the position of another subject ("playing out" his role) and the ability to combine in thoughts and feelings one's own vision of the situation and the point of view of another. This is possible through performing certain actions. The purpose of these actions is the production of something common (something “third” in relation to those communicating). Among these actions are: communicative acts (exchange of information), acts of decentration (putting oneself in the place of another) and personalization (achieving subjective reflection in another). The subjective level of reflection contains a holistic image-experience of another person, which creates additional incentives (motives) for his partner.
Individual -> I. In the logic of “ascending from the abstract to the concrete,” the category “individual” can be considered as the basic one in the construction of the metapsychological category “I”. The basis of such a view is formed by the idea of the individual’s self-identity as an essential characteristic of his “I”. It is assumed that the individual’s experience and perception of his self-identity form an internal and integral characteristic of his “I”: the individual strives to maintain his own integrity, to protect, and therefore, realizes a special attitude towards himself and others, carrying out certain actions. In a word, “I” is the individual’s identity with himself, given to him in the image and experience of himself and forming the motive of his actions and relationships.
Key issues and explanatory principles of psychology
The content of theoretical psychology, along with the categorical system, includes its basic explanatory principles: determinism, development, systematicity. Being general scientific in their significance,
they allow us to understand the nature and character of specific psychological phenomena and patterns.
The principle of determinism reflects the natural dependence of phenomena on the factors that generate them. This principle in psychology allows us to identify the factors that determine the most important characteristics of the human psyche, revealing their dependence on the generating conditions rooted in his existence. The corresponding chapter of the book characterizes various types and forms of determination of psychological phenomena, explaining their origin and characteristics.
The principle of development allows us to understand personality precisely as a developing one, successively passing through phases, periods, epochs and eras of the formation of its essential characteristics. At the same time, it is necessary to emphasize the organic relationship and interdependence of the explanatory principles accepted by theoretical psychology as defining ones.
The principle of systematicity is not a declaration, not a fashionable word usage, as was the case in Russian psychology in the 70s and 80s. Systematicity presupposes the presence of a system-forming principle, which, for example, when applied in the psychology of personality development, makes it possible to understand the characteristics of a developing personality based on the use of the concept of active mediation, which acts as a system-forming principle. Thus, the explanatory principles of psychology are in an indissoluble unity, without which the formation of a methodology of scientific knowledge in psychology is impossible. Explanatory principles in psychology underlie the categorical system proposed in the final section of the book as the core of theoretical psychology,
The key problems of theoretical psychology (psychophysical, psychophysiological, psychognostic, psychosocial, psychopraxical), to the same extent as the categories, form a series open to possible further addition. Arising at virtually every stage of the historical path of formation of psychological knowledge, they turned out to be most dependent on the state of related sciences: philosophy (primarily epistemology), hermeneutics, physiology, as well as social practice. For example, the psychophysiological problem in its solution options (psychophysical parallelism, interaction, unity) bears the imprint of philosophical discussions between supporters of the dualistic and monistic worldview and successes in developing a body of knowledge in the field of psychophysiology. Emphasizing the key nature of these problems, we separate them from the countless number of private issues and problems solved in various fields and branches of psychology. The key problems in this regard could rightfully be considered “classical” ones, which have invariably arisen throughout the two thousand year history of psychology.
From the basics to the theoretical system
The categorical system, explanatory principles and key problems, acting as supports for building the foundations of theoretical psychology and thereby constituting it as a branch of psychology, nevertheless do not exhaust its content.
We can name specific tasks, the solution of which leads to the creation of a system of theoretical psychology as a full-fledged scientific branch. The field of view includes the relationship between the subject and methods of psychological research, the criterial assessment of the validity of psychological concepts, the identification of the place of psychology in the system of scientific knowledge, the causes of the emergence, flourishing and collapse of psychological schools, the relationship between scientific psychological knowledge and esoteric teachings and much more.
In a number of cases, rich material has been accumulated for solving these problems. It is enough to point to the work in the field of psychology of science. However, the integration of the results of theoretical research scattered across various monographs, textbooks, and manuals published in Russia and abroad has not yet been carried out. In this regard, to a large extent, the theoretical foundations for turning industries, scientific schools, and various currents of psychology to themselves, to their own foundations, have not developed.
In its essence, theoretical psychology, opposed to practical psychology, is nevertheless organically connected with it. It makes it possible to separate what meets the requirements of scientific validity from speculations that are not related to science. In Russian psychology in recent years, all this seems especially important.
Theoretical psychology must form a strict attitude towards the content of all branches of psychology, determining their place taking into account the use of explanatory principles, the representation of basic, metapsychological and other categories in them, and ways to solve key scientific problems. In order to move from studying and considering the foundations of theoretical psychology to building its system, it is necessary to identify the system-forming principle. In the recent past, this issue would have been resolved with greater “ease.” The philosophy of Marxism-Leninism would be declared to be a similar principle, although this would not advance the solution of the problem. The point, obviously, is not that, for example, historical materialism, the once dominant ideology, could not play this role, but that the system-forming principle of theoretical psychology generally cannot be completely and completely extracted from other philosophical teachings. It must be found in the very fabric of psychological knowledge, especially its self-awareness and self-realization. This, undoubtedly, is the task that psychological theorists are called upon to solve.
Part 1
PROLEGOMENA
TO THEORETICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH
M.: Academy, 1996 - 496 p.
The book is based on the textbook “General Psychology,” which was reprinted many times from 1970 to 1986 and translated into German, Finnish, Danish, Chinese, Spanish and many other languages. The textbook has been radically revised and supplemented with new materials that meet the modern level of development of psychological science.
Despite all the content and completeness, the textbook retains the features of propaedeutics in relation to subsequent basic and practice-oriented academic disciplines. In fact, each chapter of this book is the basis of a corresponding textbook for a specific psychological discipline. For example, the chapters “Communication” and “Personality” are a kind of preamble for the course (program and textbook) “Social Psychology”. Chapters devoted to cognitive processes: “Memory”, “Perception”, “Thinking”, “Imagination” are introduced into the course “Educational Psychology” or “Psychology of Education”.
Format: pdf/zip
Size: 2.7 2 MB
/Download file
Format: doc/zip
Size: 733 KB
/Download file
CONTENT
Part I. SUBJECT AND HISTORY OF PSYCHOLOGY
Chapter 1. Historical path of development of psychology (M.G, Yaroshevsky).................. S
1. Ancient psychology.................................................. ........................... 6
2. Psychological thought of the New Age.................................................... 18
3. The origins of psychology as a science................................................... ......... 28
4. Development of experimental and differential psychology.... 38
5. Main psychological schools.................................................... ....... 44
6. Evolution of schools and directions................................................. ............. 57
Chapter 2. Modern psychology. Its subject and place in the system of sciences (A.V. Petrovsky). 70
1. Subject of psychology......................................................... ........................... 70
2. Psychology and natural science.................................................. ............... 73
3. Psychology and scientific and technological progress.................................................... 76
4. Psychology and pedagogy................................................... ........................ 77
5. The place of psychology in the system of sciences.................................................... .......... 80
6. Structure of modern psychology.................................................. ...... 80
7. The concept of general psychology................................................... ................ 85
Chapter 3. Methods of psychology (LA. Karpenko)............................................ ............... 88
1. Subjective method.................................................... ........................... 88
2. Objective method.................................................... ........................... 91
3. Objective research methods................................................................. ...... 92
4. Experimental method......................................................... ........................... 96
5. Measurements in psychology.................................................... ........................ 100
6. Survey method......................................................... ........................................... 106
7. Projective methods............................................................. ........................... 111
8. Method of reflected subjectivity.................................................... .......... 112
9. Organization of a specific psychological study............ 113
Part II. PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND STATES
Chapter 4. Sensations (T.P. Zinchenko)..................................................... ........................... 117
1. The concept of sensation.................................................... ................................... 117
2. General patterns of sensations.................................................... ........ 126
Chapter 5. Perception (V.L. Zinchenko, T.P. Zinchenko).................................. .......... 137
1. Characteristics of perception and its features.................................... 137
2. Perception as action................................................... ........................ 146
3. Perception of space................................................... ........................... 149
4. Perception of time and motion................................................. .......... 159
Chapter 6. Memory (G.K. Sereda).................................................... ........................................ 164
1. General concept of memory................................................... ........................... 164
2. Types of memory........................................................ ........................................... 172
3. General characteristics of memory processes.................................................... 177
4. Memorization................................................... ........................................... 179
5. Playback................................................... ................................... 187
6. Forgetting and storing.................................................... ........................... 190
7. Individual differences in memory.................................................... ........ 194
Chapter 7. Thinking (A.V. Brushlinsky).................................................... ........................ 196
1. General characteristics of thinking................................................... ......... 196
2- Thinking and problem solving.................................................... .................... 209
3. Types of thinking............................................................. .................................... 217
Chapter 8. Imagination (A.V. Petrovsky).................................................... .................... 222
1. The concept of imagination, its main types and processes.................... 222
2. Physiological foundations of imagination processes.................................... 230
3. The role of fantasy in children’s play and adults’ creativity.................................. 233
Chapter 9. Feelings (AL Petrovsky)................................................. ............................... 239
1. Definition of feelings and their physiological basis.................................... 239
2. Forms of experiencing feelings.................................................... ................... 243
3. Feelings and personality................................................. ................................... 252
Part III. INTERDISCIPLINARY CONCEPTS OF PSYCHOLOGY
Chapter 10. Activity (L.I. Petrovsky, V.L. Petrovsky).................................259
1. Internal organization of human activity.................................................259
2. External organization of activity................................................... .......267
3. Painful actions.................................................. ................................276
Chapter 11. Communication (L.V. Petrovsky).................................................... ...........................280
1. The concept of communication.................................................... ...............................280
2. Communication as the exchange of information................................................... .........283
3. Communication as interpersonal interaction.................................................292
4. Communication as people’s understanding of each other.................................................. 301
Chapter 12. Groups (L.V. Petrovsky).................................................... ...............................310
1. Groups and their classification................................................... ...............310
2. The highest form of group development.................................................. ............312
3. Differentiation between groups of different levels of development...................................320
4. Integration of groups of different levels of development....................................331
5. Student groups: psychological features of the work of a teacher (MAO. Kondraty:i).337
6. Structure of relationships in the family.................................................. .....350
Chapter 13. Consciousness (B.S. Mukhina, L.V. PstroiskiP)................................................. ....362
1. Development of the psyche in phylogenesis.................................................... .............362
2. The emergence of consciousness.................................................... ......................366
3. The structure of consciousness and the unconscious in the human psyche........................372
Chapter 14. Personality (L.V. Petrovsky)................................................. ...........................385
1. The concept of personality in psychology.................................................... .........385
2. Personality structure.................................................... ...............................390
3. Basic theories of personality in foreign psychology...................................397
4. Personality orientation............................................................. .................... 401
5. Personal self-awareness................................................................. ........................ 407
6. Personal development.................................................. ................................... 417
Part IV. INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS OF A PERSON
Chapter 15. Temperament (N.S. Leites)................................................. ............................ 432
1. General concept of temperament.................................................... ............... 432
2. The role of temperament in work and educational activities.....,............ 442
3. Temperament and parenting problems.................................................. ... 447
Chapter 16. Character (A.V. Petrovsky)................................................. ........................... 451
1. The concept of character................................................... ................................ 451
2. Character structure.................................................... ........................... 452
3. Nature and manifestations of character................................................. .......... 458
Chapter 17. Abilities (A.V. Petrovsky^....................................... .................... 468
1. The concept of abilities................................................... ........................... 468
2. Structure of abilities.................................................... ........................... 474
3. Talent, its origin and structure.................................................... .. 476
4. Natural prerequisites for abilities and talent.................................... 480
5. Formation of abilities................................................... ................ 486
Application. Glossary of terms................................................... ........................... 489
Recommended reading................................................... ............... 491
M. G. Yaroshesky - Ch. 2, 3, 4, 10; V. A. Petrovsky - Ch. 6; A.V.
Brushlipsky - Ch. 13
Part I INTRODUCTION TO
PSYCHOLOGY
Reviewers:
Doctor of Psychology, Academician of the Russian Academy of Education V. S. Mukhina;
Doctor of Psychology, Academician of the Russian Academy of Education V. V. Rubtsov
Petrovsky A.V., Yaroshevsky M.G.
P 30 Psychology: Textbook for higher education. ped. schools, institutions. -
2nd ed., stereotype. - M.: Publishing Center<Академия>;
High School, 200 i. - 512 s.
ISBN 5-7695-0465-Х (Publishing center<Академия>)
ISBN 5-06-004170-0 (Higher School)
This textbook is a continuation of the series of textbooks for
universities published under the editorship of A. V. Petrovsky -<Общая психология>
(1970, 1976, 1977, 1986) and<Введение в психологию> (1995, 1996, 1997),
awarded in 1997 the Prize of the Government of the Russian Federation in
field of education.
The book reveals the subject, methods, historical path of development
visual-psychological characteristics of personality.
UDC 159.9(075.8)
ISBN 5-7695-0465-Х
ISBN 5-06-004170-0
c Petrovsky A.V., Yaroshevsky M.G., 1998 c
Publishing center<Академия>, 1998
Chapter 1 SUBJECT AND
METHODS OF PSYCHOLOGY
In the 20th century, the scientific foundations for the development were created
the most important problems of psychology. Currently psychology
defined its own special subject of study, its specific
objectives, own research methods; whole people are doing it
psychological institutes, laboratories, educational institutions
They train psychologists and publish special journals.
International psychological studies are systematically collected
congresses, psychologists unite into scientific associations and
society. The importance of psychology as one of the most important sciences about
man is now universally recognized.
SUBJECT OF PSYCHOLOGY
Each specific science differs from other sciences in particular
benefits of your subject. Thus, geology differs from geo-
desia in that, having the Earth as the subject of study, the first of
them studies its composition, structure and history, and the second - its dimensions
and shape. Clarification of the specific features of phenomena,
studied by psychology represents a significantly larger
difficulty. Understanding these phenomena largely depends on the
view held by people faced with
the need to comprehend psychological science.
The difficulty lies primarily in the fact that the phenomena studied
sought after by psychology, have long been distinguished by the human mind and
separated from other manifestations of life as special. IN
in fact, it is quite obvious that my perception of pi-
sewing machine is something completely special and different from
the typewriter itself, a real object that costs
on the table in front of me; my desire to go skiing is
something different compared to a real ski trip; my
the memory of the New Year's Eve is something different -
based on what really happened on New Year's Eve, and
etc. Thus, ideas about various
categories of phenomena that came to be called mental
(mental functions, properties, processes, state
niyami, etc.). Their special character was seen in belonging to
the inner world of a person, different from what
surrounds a person, and was attributed to the area of mental life, pro-
contrasted with real events and facts. These phenomena
grouped under names<восприятие>, <память>,
<мышление>, <воля>, <чувства>etc., collectively forming
what is called the psyche, mental, inner world
a person, his mental life, etc. The psyche concludes
own internal picture of the world, inseparable from the human body
and represents the total result of the functional
ning of his body, primarily the central nervous
system, it provides the possibility of existence and
human development in the world.
Although people who directly observed other people in
everyday communication, dealt with various facts
behavior (actions, deeds, labor operations
etc.), however, the needs of practical interaction
forced them to distinguish hidden behind external behavior
mental processes. The action was always seen
intentions, motives that guided a person, behind
reaction to a particular event - character traits.
Therefore, long before mental processes, properties,
states became the subject of scientific analysis, accumulated
everyday psychological knowledge of people about each other. It
was fixed, passed on from generation to generation, in
language, folk art, and works of art. His
collected, for example, proverbs and sayings:<Лучше один раз
to see is to hear ten times> (about the advantages of spectator-
of perception and memorization before auditory);<Привычка -
second nature> (about the role of established habits that can
compete with innate forms of behavior), etc.
Everyday psychological information gleaned from the
social and personal experience, form pre-scientific psycho-
logical knowledge. They can be quite extensive,
can to a certain extent contribute to orientation in
behavior of surrounding people may be in certain
within the limits correct and corresponding to reality.
However, in general, such knowledge is not systematic,
depth, evidence and for this reason cannot become
a solid basis for serious work with people (teaching
logical, therapeutic, organizational, etc.), requiring scientific
nyh, i.e. objective and reliable knowledge about the human psyche
century, allowing one to predict its behavior in certain
other expected circumstances.
What constitutes the subject of scientific study in psychology?
gee? These are, first of all, concrete facts of mental life,
characterized qualitatively and quantitatively. So, exploring
the process of a person’s perception of the objects around him,
psychology has established that the image of an object retains its relation
strong constancy even under changing perceptual conditions
yatiya. For example, the page on which these lines are printed is
will be perceived as white even in bright sunlight
light, and in semi-darkness, and under electric lighting, although
physical characteristics of rays cast by paper
with such different illumination, it will be different. In this
case we have a qualitative characteristic of the psycho-
gical fact. An example of a quantitative characteristic
psychological fact can be the speed of reaction
given person to the acting stimulus (if
the subject is offered, in response to the flash of a light bulb,
press the button as quickly as possible, then one has a reaction speed
maybe 200 milliseconds, and another - 150, i.e. know
significantly faster). Individual differences in speed
the reactions observed in the experiment are psychological
scientific facts established in scientific research
NI. They allow us to quantitatively characterize some
mental characteristics of various subjects.
However, scientific psychology cannot limit itself to describing
knowledge of a psychological fact, no matter how interesting it may be
was. Scientific knowledge necessarily requires a transition from
descriptions of phenomena to their explanation. The latter implies
discovery of the laws that govern these phenomena.
Therefore, the subject of study in psychology together with psycho-
Psychological laws become psychological facts. So,
the emergence of some psychological facts observed
is necessary whenever there are resources for this
appropriate conditions, i.e. naturally. Natural
character is, for example, the above fact regarding
physical constancy of perception, while constancy
possesses not only the perception of color, but also the perception of size
ranks and forms of the subject. Special studies have shown
whether that constancy of perception is not given to man initially,
from birth. It is formed gradually, according to strict laws
us. If there were no constancy of perception, a person would not
could navigate the external environment - at the slightest
changing its position relative to surrounding objects
there would be a radical change in the picture of the visible
world, objects would be perceived distorted.
How can one define the subject of psychology? Whatever
advanced in difficult ways over the centuries
psychological thought, mastering its subject, no matter how
knowledge about it changed and was enriched, no matter what the terminology
we have not designated it (soul, consciousness, psyche, activity
etc.), it is possible to identify features that characterize one’s own
is the subject of psychology, distinguishing it from other sciences.
The subject of psychology is the natural connections between subjects
ect with the natural and sociocultural world, captured in
system of sensory and mental images of this world, motivation
elements that motivate action, as well as in the actions themselves,
experiences of one’s relationship to other people and oneself, in
properties of the individual as the core of this system.
Its biologically determined components are also present in
animals (sensory images of the environment, motivation of behavior,
both instinctive and acquired in the process of
aptitude for it). However, the mental organization of man
qualitatively different from these biological forms. Co-
The socio-cultural way of life gives rise to consciousness in a person. IN
interpersonal contacts mediated by language and communication
joint activity, individual,<всматриваясь>in others
people, acquires the ability to know oneself as
subject of mental life, set goals in advance, pre-
his actions, to judge the inner plan of his
management Not all components of this plan are translated into English
consciousness. But they, forming the sphere of the unconscious, serve
subject of psychology, which reveals the nature of the corresponding
the expression of actual motives, drives, personal orientation
contradiction to her existing ideas about them. How to realize
conscious and unconscious mental acts are realized
through neurohumoral mechanisms, but do not occur
according to physiological, but according to the actual psychological laws
us. Historical experience says that knowledge about the subject
the field of psychology developed and expanded thanks to
connections of this science with other sciences - natural, social
nal, technical.
The theory occupies a special place among the branches of psychology.
tic psychology. The subject of theoretical psychology
principles, key problems solved throughout
historical path of development of psychological science.
PSYCHOLOGY
in the system of sciences
Modern psychology is at the intersection of a number of sciences. She
occupies an intermediate position between public
sciences, on the one hand, natural sciences, on the other,
technical - from the third. Its closeness to these sciences, even
the presence of industries developed jointly with
some of them, does not in any way deprive her
independence. In all its branches psychology
retains its subject of research, its theoretical
principles, their own ways of studying this subject. What
concerns the versatility of psychological problems, so
significant not only for psychology, but also for related
sciences, this is explained by the fact that the focus of attention of psychologists
there always remains a person - the main character of the world
progress. All sciences and branches of knowledge have meaning and significance
only due to the fact that they serve man, arm him,
are created by him, arise and develop as human theory
and practice. All further development of psychological knowledge
is conceived as the maximum expansion of the connections between psychology and
related sciences while maintaining its independent
subject of research.
Psychology and
scientific-technical
The 20th century is characterized by exceptional
scale development of production, new types of technology,
technical progress in communications, widespread use
electronics, automation, development of new types of transport,
operating at supersonic speeds, etc. All this
makes enormous demands on the human psyche,
dealing with modern technology.
In industry, in transport, in military affairs, everything
taking into account the so-called psycho-
logical factor, i.e. possibilities contained in psi-
chemical cognitive processes - perception, memory,
thinking, in personality traits - character traits,
temperament, reaction speed, etc. So, in conditions of nervous
mental tension caused by the need
make responsible decisions in the shortest possible time
deadlines (situations largely typical for modern super-
sound aviation, for the work of dispatchers-operators of large
energy systems, etc.), turns out to be extremely significant
It is important to have certain personality traits that allow
carry out activities without any errors or disruptions. From-
the presence of these qualities leads to accidents.
The study of human psychological capabilities in connection with
requirements imposed on him by complex types of work
activities, characterizes the important role of modern
psychology. Engineering psychology dealing with solution
Problems<человек-машина>(issues of human interaction
century and technology), as well as the psychology of work in general, is closely
is in contact with many areas of technology.
The further development of psychology was significantly influenced by
has the computer revolution. A number of functions, including
unique property of human consciousness (functional
tions of accumulation and processing of information, management and
control) can now be performed by electronic devices.
The use of information-theoretic concepts and models
lei contributed to the introduction of new logical
mathematical methods. At the same time, individual studies
teliers, intoxicated by the successes of cybernetics, began to interpret the
catcher like a machine with program control. At that
At the same time, automation and cybernization have sharply increased
interest in learning and using effectively
functions that cannot be transferred to electronic devices
swarms, first of all - creative abilities.
For the future of humanity, for the individual and his psyche
building the significance of the computer revolution is enormous. But somehow
the personality of a person has not changed, no matter what miracles it has created
electronic information technology, it still
mental properties with all the signs will be inherent,
characteristic of the subject of psychology.
Scientific and technological progress, being
Psychology is a factor in the development of psychological science
and pedagogy and helping to free it from speculation
telial representations, currently
clearly revealed the closest connections between psycho
logy with pedagogy. This connection, of course, has always existed
which was realized by advanced psychologists and teachers. You
distinguished Russian teacher K.D. Ushinsky (1824-1870) underlined
nodded that in terms of its significance for pedagogy, psychology
ranks first among all sciences. To educate comprehensively
a person, noted K.D. Ushinsky, must be studied comprehensively.
Development of relationships between psychology and pedagogy, starting with
30s, acquires a dramatic character, causing
hampered by the gross interference of the party leadership in
scientific life. One of the pedagogical
gical scientific disciplines - pedology. Its defeat is
significantly slowed down the development of both psychology and pedagogy.
Pedology is a movement in psychology and pedagogy that arose
neck at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. as a result of the spread