A Leontyev m science. A

It is extremely difficult for me to give this evening's lecture. Difficult for at least two reasons.

The first of them is that there is a biography of Alexei Nikolaevich written by me, and simply briefly stating what it says hardly makes sense. This means that my lecture today needs to be structured somehow differently.

But there is a second difficulty. After all, I am not just a biographer of Alexei Nikolaevich - I and his son. Let him not just be a son, but also a student, and I flatter myself with the hope that in some sense he is the successor of his scientific work, or rather, one of the successors. But still, my attitude towards him is more subjective than that of his other students and followers. And I really wouldn’t want my lecture to turn into just a son’s story about his father.

In any case, I will try to go through my father’s life path with you, following his thoughts and feelings, trying to understand and reveal why his biography and scientific work were the way they were.

A few preliminary words about the materials that will be used in today's lecture. They are divided into two groups. Some documents and photographs have already been published in whole or in part, including (documents) in the published biography of Leontyev. The other part has never been published, and this is the first time you will hear these documents and see these photographs. Work on the personal archive of A.N. kept in the family. continues, and we do not lose hope that there will be much more interesting in it. As for the official state archives and the surviving personal archives of A.N.’s comrades, then, except for the archive of the Psychological Institute (and then partially), they have practically not been studied.

So, let's start with the biography of A.N.

The printed biography tells a lot about the family in which Alexey Nikolaevich grew up and about his parents. People of the older generation who visited his house remember them well - both Nikolai Vladimirovich and Alexandra Alekseevna. This was a wealthy merchant family - so wealthy that they could afford an annual holiday in Yalta, and when little Alyosha needed to be treated in a sanatorium, they sent him abroad, to Austria-Hungary, along with a governess. I would like you to see the faces of A.N.’s father and mother. in their youth. ( №1, №2).

About A.N.’s school years we know little. It is known that he studied at the First Moscow Real School, which later became, when he was a high school student, a “unified labor school”; here is a photo of him in those years ( №5) . He graduated early, worked as a clerk for some time, and then the family disappeared from Moscow for about three years - there is reason to think that after the outbreak of the civil war she was stuck in Crimea and was able to return to Moscow only at the beginning of 1921. Both the family and A.N. himself. it was assumed that he would become an engineer; in his unfinished, or rather, only begun autobiography, Leontyev describes his childhood hobby aircraft modeling. By the way, then the technical hobbies of A.N. they came in very handy when he had to design, assemble and set up experimental setups.

The events of the first years of the revolution led the young realist to a passion for social sciences, primarily philosophy. As he later recalled, “social cataclysms gave rise to philosophical interests. Many people had this - they even developed the type of revolutionary-minded Jew-romantic with philosophical interests (Stolpner).” This refers to the wonderful translator of Hegel into Russian, a friend of Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, Boris Grigorievich Stolpner. I continue the quote: “It was not for nothing that Bolsheviks and rabbis met at Stolpner’s funeral. He was interested in anarchism, visited (before and after its defeat) the anarchist center on Malaya Dmitrovka (a lot of anarchist literature was sold there).” Of course, in the library of A.N. this literature has not survived...

In fragments of the autobiography of A.N. wrote about how one fine day he “came to a psychological institute and asked: where should I go to become a psychologist? Someone answered that you need to enter the Faculty of History and Philology and study with Professor Chelpanov. I did just that, and the first university lecture that I listened to was precisely a lecture on psychology, and it was Chelpanov who gave it - in a large auditorium at the psychological institute.” Naturally, he presented the facts accurately, but replaced the actual motives for admission with motivation. He simply could not understand psychology enough to consciously go to study it; and it seems to me that his other story about himself in those years is more plausible: “I was engaged in philosophical problems of affects, then it all turned to psychology as a philosophical science.” That is, to the psychology of A.N. already arrived at student years thanks to Georgy Ivanovich Chelpanov.

Here is a photo of A.N. during his student years (№6) .

Let me remind you that the Psychological Institute was then part of the university.

Of his university teachers, Leontyev recalled, besides Chelpanov, few more. Among them - and in first place - are Gustav Gustavovich Shpet, the then famous historians Petrushevsky, Pokrovsky, Bogoslovsky, Preobrazhensky, Volgin, the logician Gordon, who read the methodology of science, the historian of philosophy Kubatsky. In the oral memoirs of A.N. spoke very skeptically about Privatdozent Tsires; Meanwhile, even this, in his words, “comic figure” left a mark on the history of Russian science - in the mid-20s he was a member of the philosophical section of the State Academy Artistic Sciences(GAKHN), led by Shpet, together with such outstanding scientists as Guber, Gabrichevsky, Boris Isaakovich Yarkho, Akhmanov, Nikolai Ivanovich Zhinkin, Alexey Fedorovich Losev. In the library of A.N. Shpet's books, published in 1922-1927, have been preserved. Nikolai Ivanovich Bukharin, who taught a course on historical materialism for the first time, also taught at the faculty at that time.

When Leontyev was studying at the university, the struggle for the creation of materialist psychology was just unfolding, which resulted in a kind of anti-Chelpanov putsch. At the end of 1923, Chelpanov’s student, a former teacher in Omsk, Konstantin Nikolaevich Kornilov, came to power at the Psychological Institute at the end of 1923. For most, this is just a name: here is his portrait, dating back to the mid-20s (№7) . Another, so to speak, opponent of Chelpanov was Pavel Petrovich Blonsky. There is a huge literature about these events. I will dwell only on two points directly related to the life and work of A.N.

First. It was at the end of 1923 that Leontyev was left at the university “to prepare for professorship,” i.e. in graduate school. Moreover, he was left by Chelpanov. It is interesting that such a student, who in the spring of the same year was expelled from the university due to a purge for a prank perpetrated by a group of students in the class of a teacher of historical materialism; who was forced to finish his studies as an external student in the same year and received his diploma with a two-year delay - such a student in subsequent decades, and even now, would not be accepted into graduate school under any circumstances.

Second. Although Leontyev was interested in affects during his student years and, as a thesis, presented an essay entitled “A Study of Objective Symptoms of Affective Reactions,” although, as we have seen, he was immediately accepted into graduate school at the Psychological Institute, in those years he was essentially no psychologist at all. He himself admitted this several times. Oral memoirs: my question: - What did you come with? (meaning – to the Institute). Answer A.N. short and clear: - Empty. Just with the general idea of ​​​​penetrating feelings into life. - Elsewhere in the same memoirs: about the meeting with Vygotsky: - I had a vacuum filled. Plan of unrealized memoirs: “a path without choice: emotions.” About the last meeting between Leontyev and Chelpanov after his dismissal, when A.N. asked Chelpanov whether he, Leontiev, should also leave, there are at least three versions of stories - up to and including openly hostile ones towards A.N. memoirs of G.P. Shchedrovitsky. But it seems to me that it is the story of Leontyev himself, recorded by me in 1976, that is most plausible. According to this story, Chelpanov’s answer sounded like this: “Don’t do it. These are all matters for scientists, and you do not have your own judgment. You have no obligations to me." That is: you are not a scientist yet, and do not interfere in the affairs of scientists! But that’s how it was...

The new director brought with him a mass of scientific youth, burning with the desire to build Marxist psychology. At the end of 1923, A.R. Luria was summoned from Kazan and immediately made scientific secretary of the institute, and in the first months of 1924, on Luria’s initiative, the then little-known L.S. Vygotsky came from Gomel.

With this arrival, which almost coincided with Leontiev’s enrollment at the institute as a “freelance researcher,” a new stage began in his biography.

There is a huge literature about how and on what Leontiev worked at the Psychological Institute with Vygotsky, or more precisely, with Luria, and then they worked together with Vygotsky, including the memoirs of Luria and A.N. himself. (in order not to confuse you, I will talk specifically about the Psychological Institute, although during its existence it was renamed no less than five times. This institute bore its most extravagant name in the early 30s: it was called State Institute psychology, pedology and psychotechnics). And the published biography also says enough about this.

I want to show you photographs of the people surrounding A.N. during these years and several years later, on the eve of the Kharkov period of his life.

After the wedding, the young couple moved in with A.N.’s parents. on Bolshaya Bronnaya Street, building 5, apartment 6, and lived there for almost 30 years - until 1953. I also spent my childhood and adolescence in this house. He was known throughout psychological Moscow, and some, for example D.B. Elkonin, generally lived there for weeks. This is what it looked like in 1951 (№16) . In front of the house there is a captured German car “Opel P-4”, which A.N. I bought it cheap right after the war.

The twenties were not only collaboration with Vygotsky, the fruit of which was the first book by A.N. - “The Development of Memory”, written in 1929 and actually published only in 1932, and his other orthodox cultural-historical work - “On the question of the development of arithmetic thinking in a child”, published by us only in 2000 in one of the collections (it is included in the book of Leontiev’s articles “The Formation of the Theory of Activity”, published by the Smysl publishing house in a few months and covering Leontiev’s work in the pre-war period). And these are not only joint publications with Luria on Luriev’s issues. Among others, the remarkable article “Experience” dates back to this time. structural analysis chain associative series”, first published in 1928 in the “Russian-German Medical Journal”, and then republished in Leontiev’s two-volume book in 1983. Leontyev recalled this article: “Luria had a negative attitude towards the study of complexes other than Freud and Jung. Therefore, the article... was prepared underground by Luria. This is not Jung, but associationism. Free associations are not a chain, a chain in the second row (the germ of the concept of personal meaning).” In fact, this is A.N.’s first independent publication!

I want to take this opportunity to warn my listeners against this two-volume publication. Of course, it’s good that it came out - and I myself was among its editors, although only nominally. But when D.A. Leontiev and I began working on the mentioned volume of A.N.’s early works, we immediately encountered blatant arbitrariness in the publication of Leontiev’s texts in a two-volume edition. All these texts had to be rechecked against the originals, and significant discrepancies were discovered - unmarked omissions, and sometimes even passages written “for Leontyev.” Therefore, I repeat once again, textologically Leontiev’s two-volume work is completely unsatisfactory.

At the Psychological Institute, which under Kornilov became a stronghold of reactology and at the same time focused on class psychology (“the psyche of the proletarian”), Vygotsky’s group very quickly felt uncomfortable. As Luria recalled, “differences with Kornilov began almost immediately; we did not like his line.” However, the hostility was mutual. Kornilov accused Vygotsky and his collaborators of moving away from Marxism and pushing through idealistic concepts. It’s hard to believe, but Kornilov considered such an idealistic concept... will!

Therefore, Vygotsky and his students, without formally leaving the Psychological Institute, in reality moved to another place, namely to the Academy of Communist Education named after N.K. Krupskaya (AKV). Luria became the head of the psychological section there, Vygotsky headed the laboratory, and Leontiev was an associate professor. “The earnings in the service were extremely low,” recalled A.N., and all of them, like us now, ran from one institution to another. Leontiev, in particular, in addition to AKV, worked part-time at the State Central College of Theater Arts (the future GITIS), at the Moscow State College of Cinematography, which grew into VGIK, where he met and collaborated with S. M. Eisenstein, at the Medical-Pedagogical Clinic of Professor Rossolimo, where rose to the rank of head of the scientific department or, as it was called in the documents, “chairman of the Scientific Bureau.”

Here are two photographs of Leontyev from this time - the late 20s (№17, №18) . There is a third one, which, according to some guesses, dates back to the late 30s, but I want to show it now. The fact is that “The Development of Memory”, while still in manuscript, received the 1st Prize of the Main Science and Central Committee ( Central Commission to improve the life of scientists), amounting to 500 rubles. With this money, Leontyev recalled, “I bought a doha with a kangaroo foal and a turnout” (honestly, I don’t know what it is!). And I would really like to imagine that in this photograph A.N. filmed in this very “dokha with a foal” (№19).

At the very end of the 20s and the beginning of the 30s, Vygotsky and all his immediate circle first encountered the perverted reality of Soviet ideology. Clouds began to gather above them.

A fierce criticism of cultural-historical psychology unfolded at the Psychological Institute - as later, in 1934, one of the Institute’s employees, Razmyslov, wrote, it was allegedly “a pseudoscientific reactionary, anti-Marxist and class-hostile theory.” However, Vygotsky’s group was not dismissed from the institute: after the “reactology” discussion in 1930, Kornilov was removed from his post of director (he was replaced by the famous teacher Zalkind), and some of Vygotsky’s ideas were even included in the scientific research plan of the institute, which caused great concern both Vygotsky and Leontiev. The latter wrote to Vygotsky at the beginning of 1932: “The very system of ideas in huge dangers...The Institute is working (trying to work) according to ours plans. This - alienation our ideas. This is the beginning of a complete fall, the resorption of the system.” At the same time, Vygotsky’s group was crushed for famous expeditions Luria to Uzbekistan (1931 and 1932), for the joint book by Luria and Vygotsky “Etudes in the History of Behavior” (“an idealistic revision of historical materialism and its concretization in psychology”). An article by a certain Feofanov appeared, “On an eclectic theory in psychology,” the revealing intensity of which was, however, greatly discredited by a funny typo in the title itself: “On one electrical theories in psychology". It is interesting that one of the authors of the program on psychology, which caused such concern for Leontyev, was perhaps the most fierce critic of the cultural-historical school, A.V. Vedenov!

Leontyev was expelled from VGIK after an article appeared in two central newspapers at once under the threatening title “Nest of Idealists and Trotskyists.” But the worst thing was that the main stronghold of Vygotsky’s group - AKV - was also under attack in 1930. Just the faculty where they worked - the faculty social sciences- was declared “Trotskyist”. A year later, it was turned into an institute and transferred to Leningrad, and on September 1, 1931, Leontyev was fired from there - “the campaign against the colleges began,” Leontyev recalled.

The pogrom also took place in pedagogy (the main thing is that the “unified labor school”, the main theoreticians of which were Blonsky and Vygotsky, ceased to exist).

At the end of 1930, the philosophical school of “dialectics”, headed by the director of the Institute of Philosophy, Academician Deborin, ceased to exist. It was their positions that were reflected in Vygotsky’s thoughts on the development of the child’s psyche - Vygotsky also has direct references to Deborin. Leontyev also knew him. Personally, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin declared Deborin’s philosophy a “left deviation” and called the Deborinites “Menshevik idealists” - what this label was supposed to mean is not clear to this day. One of the consequences of the defeat of the Deborinites was that “The Development of Memory” was not published for a whole year - it was published only after a brochure with two signatures - the author Leontyev and the scientific editor Vygotsky - with self-exposure was included in the circulation copies...

Already in 1932, clearly on instructions from above, the party bureau of the Psychological Institute set out - I quote a document of that time - “to take psychotechnics and pedology under fire from Marxist-Leninist criticism.” And Vygotsky was - for all his critical attitude towards many things in the theory and practice of pedology - the author of several textbooks on pedology for students!

From all this it is already clear that Vygotsky and his students found themselves in a more than ambiguous and, at that time, very dangerous position. They were looking for a way out of this situation: for example, Vygotsky spent a third of his working time in Leningrad, reading his famous lectures on the history of development there mental functions. Luria went to the Medical Genetics Institute and worked there on the mental development of twins. Leontyev turned out to be the worst of all.

And then he—and Vygotsky’s entire group—was lucky. At the end of 1930, an invitation came from the People's Commissar of Health of Ukraine Kantorovich to move to Kharkov (it was then the capital of the Ukrainian SSR) and create a “psychoneurological sector” at the Ukrainian Psychoneurological Institute. Later the sector became known as the psychology sector, and the institute became known as the All-Ukrainian Psychoneurological Academy. It was assumed that Luria, Vygotsky, Leontyev, Bozhovich, Zaporozhets and Mark Samuilovich Libedinsky would move to Kharkov. Negotiations lasted almost a year, and Vygotsky also took part in them. As a result, Vygotsky never moved, although this issue was seriously discussed in his family - right up to plans to exchange his Moscow apartment for a Kharkov one. However, he constantly visited Kharkov, and Leontyev and Zaporozhets, in turn, often traveled to Moscow, where they took part in Vygotsky’s “internal conferences.” Luria moved, but not for long and soon returned to Moscow, and the post of head of the sector he occupied passed to Leontyev. Bozhovich first remained in Kharkov, and then moved to neighboring Poltava. The Zaporozhets moved with his wife, also a psychologist T.O. Ginevskaya. They all lived, as Ginevskaya recalled, in a “commune” - in one large apartment.

I specifically told you in such detail about the circumstances of the move so that it would become clear to you that they had no other choice. No matter how we talk about the theoretical and personal differences between Vygotsky and Leontiev, they were by no means the reason for the move of Leontiev and his collaborators to Kharkov.

But there were discrepancies - theoretical at least. IN printed text autobiography, I analyze this problem in detail - based on previously unknown documents; it is covered in great detail in our publication with D. A. Leontiev “The Myth of the Gap: A. N. Leontiev and L. S. Vygotsky in 1932” in first issue of the “Psychological Journal” for this year. Therefore, now I will emphasize only one thing, the main thing: the Kharkov group did not oppose itself to Vygotsky in a theoretical sense; as P.Ya. Galperin correctly wrote back in 1983, the research of Kharkov residents led “to a significant change in accent research - L.S. Vygotsky emphasized the influence higher mental functions on the development of lower mental functions and practical activities child, and A.N. Leontyev emphasized the leading role external, subject activity in the development of mental activity, in the development of consciousness." And much of what, at the beginning of their journey, Kharkov psychologists interpreted as points of divergence from Vygotsky, and sometimes as his “mistakes,” they later assimilated, realizing that Vygotsky was right. This concerns, for example, the problem of emotional control of actions, i.e. what Vygotsky called the unity of affect and intellect. Another question is that Kharkov residents subjectively felt themselves to be opponents of Vygotsky on some issues. For the time being, of course.

At the Psychoneurological Academy, and then at the Kharkov Pedagogical Institute, it was around A.N. Young Kharkov psychologists began to group together, some of whom were graduate students of Leontyev. Here are some photos.

Unfortunately, I did not have a photograph of the young P.Ya. Galperin, who was one of the most prominent representatives Kharkov group. In order not to be distracted later, I will show two more group photos of Vygotsky’s students, also taken after the war.

The first of them is well known; I reproduced it in my 1990 book on Vygotsky (№23) . But the second, as far as I know, has never been published anywhere. Pay attention to the portrait of Vygotsky, against the background of which they are photographed ( №24) .

I will not describe the research of the Kharkov group and, consequently, Leontiev in the first half of the 30s. This is discussed in detail in the published biography. And the best way to sum up these studies is in the words of S.L. Rubinstein from his famous book “Fundamentals of General Psychology.” This is what he wrote: “... these studies establish that the practical intellectual actions of children already at the earliest stages of development are of a specifically human nature. This is determined by the fact that the child is surrounded from the very first day of his life by human objects - objects that are the product of human labor, and first of all he practically masters human relations to these items in human ways actions with them... The basis for the development of specifically human practical actions in a child is, first of all, the fact that the child enters into practical communication with other people, with the help of whom he can only satisfy his needs. This is exactly what... is the one practical basis, on which his speech development itself is built.”

Three months before his death, Vygotsky negotiated the creation of a psychological department at the All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine (VIEM), or rather, in its Moscow branch (VIEM was based mainly in Leningrad). According to Vygotsky, all his students scattered throughout the world were supposed to go into it. different places; Leontiev was to become deputy head of the department. The department opened, but the move of A.N. dragged on, and only in October 1934, after Vygotsky’s death, Luria (as head of the pathopsychology laboratory) and Leontiev (as head of the developmental psychology laboratory) were enrolled at VIEM. On February 16, Leontyev speaks at VIEM with a report on “Psychological research of speech.” In it he said (I quote an unpublished very detailed auto-synopsis on which the report was read): “What are the actual theoretical premises of psychological research?... It is necessary... to understand that human activity is mediated in the ideal reflection of its subject in consciousness (practically carried out in the word )... Understand the real relationship between psychological and physiological...”

The first of these premises takes us back to Vygotsky. “The work of Vygotsky and his collaborators, on which we rely and from which we depart...” Our task is “to understand the development of the word not as a movement caused by an external cause, but as a self-developing thing...”. Compare: two years later in E.I. Rudneva’s pogrom book “Psychological Perversions of Vygotsky” it was said that the methodological basis of Vygotsky’s statements “is the Machian understanding of the intellect, its self-development, independence from the outside world...”, and about Leontiev - as a follower of Vygotsky - it was said that he “still has not disarmed.”

About the relationship between psychology and physiology A.N. said this: “Physiology answers the question of HOW the implementation (according to what laws of the body) of this or that activity occurs. Psychology answers the question of what is subject to realization, how and according to what laws this reality arises... What can we say about that physiology that arrogantly turns away from that reality, the laws of whose implementation it must study.”

How do you think these statements could have been met in 1935 at the physiological institute, which was basically VIEM? Right; The leadership of VIEM and especially the physiologists who worked there could not withstand them. Leontyev worked for another year at VIEM, but at the beginning of 1936 his laboratory was closed and he himself was fired. Someone complained to the Moscow Party Committee, but, A.N. recalled, “everything went off without much of a scandal.” Furthermore- after his dismissal, the same Academic Council of VIEM, which crushed his report, awarded Leontyev the academic degree of Candidate of Biological Sciences without defending his dissertation. But that was little consolation...

Simultaneously with admission to VIEM A.N. became a professor at the Higher Communist Institute of Education (VKIP). But even there he could not resist - the laboratory he headed was dispersed in October of the same 1936. So Leontyev remained completely unemployed for almost a year. In addition, in July 1936, the famous resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks/b/ “On pedological perversions in the system of People's Commissariat for Education” came into force. In the summer of the same year, after the resolution, a set of volumes of “Scientific Notes” of the Kharkov Research Institute of Pedagogy was scattered - articles by Leontyev, Bozhovich, Zinchenko, Asnin, Khomenko, Mistyuk and Zaporozhets (together with Asnin). Thank God, the proofs of this collection have been preserved! On the same days, the editorial office of the magazine “Under the Banner of Marxism” convened a “meeting” of leading psychologists, where V.N. Kolbanovsky (then director of the Psychological Institute), Luria, Leontyev, Galperin, Elkonin, Blonsky and Teplov were present. There was a posthumous defeat of Vygotsky and his school: about Leontiev, in particular, it was said that he did not consider it possible to criticize his theoretical concept and reveal specific errors in his work. And his speech at the meeting was an example of how one should not behave towards the most important issues on the psychological front... Well, in January of the landmark year 1937, the already mentioned brochure by E.I. Rudneva was published.

“I was placed under suspicion,” recalled A.N., but neither he, nor Luria, nor Kolbanovsky, in his words, “were not stuck”: “we were neither victims nor prosecutors - we could not be encouraged to speak out.” ".

In the fall, Kornilov again became the director of the Psychological Institute, and he hired A.N. to work at the institute. Of course, he dealt with methodologically harmless topics, especially photosensitivity of the skin as part of the more general problem of the genesis of sensitivity. But I did. The salary, of course, was meager; again, I had to earn extra money. And the position of A.N. the institute was unstable. Therefore, when Elkonin in 1939 conveyed an invitation to Leontyev to head the department of psychology at the Leningrad Pedagogical Institute. N.K. Krupskaya, he gladly accepted this invitation, as well as the invitation to head the same department at the Institute of Communist Education. His schedule was the same as Vygotsky’s in his time: 20 days in Moscow, 10 in Leningrad.

Elkonin’s memoirs say: “I remember that A.N. Almost every visit was attended by S.L. Rubinstein, who at that time headed the department of psychology at the Pedagogical Institute. Herzen".

Here, by the way, is a photograph of Sergei Leonidovich ( №26) .

Relationships A.N. with S.L. became the subject of the same, I would say, unhealthy of interest to the public, like the relationship of A.N. with Vygotsky. I refer to these relations twice in my book about Leontiev. If we summarize what was said there, we can say the following.

Firstly, Leontiev and Rubinstein always had more in common than the opposite. Let us not forget that back in the 1930s both of them defended the activity approach and the very concept of activity. And the majority of Soviet psychologists (I’m not talking about Vygotsky’s students) generally, as they say, did not take this concept to heart. This can be seen in the discussion of Rubinstein’s book in 1947, where half of the speakers, in particular Dobrynin and Ananyev, criticized S.L. for excessive attention to activity, and half (Elkonin, Leontyev, Teplov) - for the fact that the principle of activity, according to Teplov, “does not sufficiently permeate his book.” In this regard, I cannot help but quote K.N. Kornilov, who in 1944, speaking at the Psychological Institute as vice-president of the Academy pedagogical sciences, literally said the following: “The problem of activity has been raised at the Institute, but I don’t understand its meaning, just as I didn’t understand it before, and I don’t understand it today, and not only me, but also those who work at the Institute.” Leontiev not only often visited Rubinstein in Leningrad, they had fairly strong business relations. Thus, in “Fundamentals of General Psychology” S.L. sympathetically relies on many of the provisions of the Kharkov group, and it is not at all accidental that it is Rubinstein who owns the best summary of the ideas of this group, which I quoted above. And, having become the head of the psychology department at Moscow State University, he first of all invited Leontyev and Zaporozhets to this department, and then even Halperin, whom Rubinstein openly did not like. Rubinstein was one of A.N.’s opponents. for his doctoral defense in May 1941 (the others were Teplov and Leon Abgarovich Orbeli). Leontiev’s favorite student S.L. worked at the recovery hospital in Kourovka. A.G.Comm. Of course, their personal relationships left much to be desired - for example, Rubinstein in 1935 failed to defend Elkonin’s dissertation, which was supervised by Leontyev, and A.N. obtained a review of the decision. There were also some other, probably purely personal, tensions, most of which were not recorded anywhere and remain unknown - when in recent years, under the leadership of E.E. Sokolova, memoirs about Leontyev were collected, at least two of the memoirists hinted at the reasons this, but no one actually talked about them.

I would like to remain objective. Yes, Leontyev was Rubinstein’s main opponent at the discussion of his book in 1947. But Rubinstein was also Leontiev’s main critic at the discussion of “Essay on the Development of the Psyche” a year later, and this criticism was even more acute! By the way, both remained within the framework of academic debate, which was rare then. Rubinstein very sharply criticized Leontyev in the press in the 40s - Leontyev did not do this in relation to Rubinstein. The famous meeting of the Presidium of the Academic Council of Moscow State University on January 17, 1949, the transcript of which was published in “Questions of Psychology” under the somewhat tendentious title “Pages of History: How S.L. Rubinstein was fired,” took place on the initiative of S.L. himself, or rather, according to his complaint to the rector that Leontyev is the inspirer of him, Rubinstein, bullying at the department - although during the discussion it turned out that Leontyev did nothing of the kind, and in the resolution of the meeting Leontyev gets no less than Rubinstein. Strictly speaking, Rubinstein was not at all fired neither from the university, nor from the Institute of Philosophy. Naturally, with the beginning of the campaign against “rootless cosmopolitans” (this is the end of January 1949), by decision of higher authorities the university was forced to release S.L. from heading the department, but this was done more or less like a gentleman - Rubinstein even remained a professor of the department. And a month later he was reinstated at the Institute of Philosophy. Teplov was appointed head of the department and remained there until 1951.

To understand the relationship of A.N. and S.L. interesting to read the letter Leontyev to Rubinstein, dated April 10, 1943. It is very businesslike and a little cold, but at the same time quite friendly towards the recipient. The letter ends like this: “I sincerely greet you, Sergei Leonidovich, I look forward to the opportunity to see you with joy. Yours A. Leontiev.”

The story of A.G. Asmolov, relating to the last year of Leontyev’s life, is characteristic. Already seriously ill A.N. once in front of him he said: “If only I could consult with Sergei Leonidovich!” Surprised, Asmolov asked: “With Rubinstein? But he died a long time ago.” “That’s just the point...” Leontyev answered.

The next, one might say, critical moment in the biography of A.N. associated with the Great Patriotic War. I wrote about this period in detail in my biography. I'll just say that the first month of war, namely July 19, A.N. It was a miracle that he survived. And in October something happened that had never happened in the history of the Psychological Institute: Leontyev was elected by the general meeting of the institute’s employees as acting director and the first thing he did was return the institute to the fold of the university. (Then, when the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR was formed, the new director, Rubinstein, transferred the institute to this academy.). The main thing is that A.N. made in evacuation - this is the famous Kourovsky recovery hospital. Again, I will not talk about it now, as well as about the famous book by Leontyev and Zaporozhets. I will only quote the words of A.N. from the already mentioned - unpublished - letter to Rubinstein in 1943. Explaining the reasons for not coming to Moscow, Leontyev writes: “But home there is only one reason, it is serious and controls me: this is a hospital, this is our “Restorative Poem”. He was born, lives and brings joy to the heart.

I am bringing you a big report about him. The days of his life turned out to be as fruitful as years. I don’t know how to talk about him without pathos, for him I will stand “to the death” - hier stehe ich, as Luther said!”

I will show you two photographs related to the evacuation. The first of them shows the entire Leontyev family, including six-year-old me, on the veranda of the house where we were settled in Ashgabat ( №27) .

In the second there is neither A.N. nor the other Leontyevs: it is interesting because it was filmed a few minutes before the collective departure of Moscow State University teachers to the desert, where they caught - more for food than for science - large Karakum turtles, which made up a significant part of our menu for these months (№28) .

Further points in the biography of A.N. the forties are associated with professorship at the newly formed university department of psychology and with enormous work at the Psychological Institute. The end of the forties comes, and again life begins to confront Leontyev with difficult choices and making difficult decisions. I myself have already witnessed this - at that time I was a high school student and understood a lot.

The end of the forties is associated by the majority with an anti-cosmopolitan, essentially anti-Semitic, campaign, with the removal of Rubinstein from the head of the department, and so on. All this was and is described in detail in the text of the biography. But for Leontyev this time turned out to be a turning point - regardless of his relationship with Rubinstein.

I mean the major conversation that took place in 1949 with A.N. with the head of the Science Department of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, Yuri Andreevich Zhdanov, who had just accused Leontyev of subjective idealism in print. Story by A.N. about this conversation is given on p. 82 of the biography. God knows how it could have ended: most likely, with arrest and imprisonment (no joke - an acute conflict with an all-powerful party official, and also the son of Andrei Aleksandrovich Zhdanov). But fate - or Yuri Andreevich himself - decided otherwise: from that day A.N.’s “career” rise began. In March 1950, he was elected a full member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR, in July he was made academician-secretary of the Academy, and then he became its vice-president.

It must be said that this turned out to be an unexpected success for Soviet psychology. For in the same summer of 1950, the famous Pavlovian session took place (officially called the Joint Scientific Session of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, dedicated to the teachings of I.P. Pavlov). It is famous primarily for the fact that A.G. Ivanov-Smolensky and K.M. Bykov, who joined him, at this session excommunicated all the most talented students of I.P. from Pavlovian physiology, especially P.K. Anokhin and L.A. .Orbeli. (There is nothing to say about obvious “anti-Pavlovians” like N.A. Bernstein). But it almost became the wake of psychology as a science: there were serious plans to abolish it according to the established pattern of pedology, psychotechnics, genetics and cybernetics and completely replace it with the physiology of higher nervous activity. And the fact that it was at this time that Leontyev became one of the leaders of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences turned out to be an important factor in its salvation. (And how serious all this was is shown by a discussion at the university of the work of the psychology department in February 1951, when the fate of psychological science had not yet been determined: it was supposed to be divided into three departments. The most interesting, which ones? Physiology of higher nervous activity, human analyzers and physiology of organs feelings... Thank God, none of this happened).

But this is already the beginning of the 60s: a little boy, led by the hand by A.N. - this is his grandson and my son, now a professor, doctor of psychological sciences Dmitry Alekseevich Leontiev ( №31) .	Around the same time, the following photograph was taken, which recorded another very characteristic gesture of A.N. (№32).	And in this photograph, dated May 24, 1969, Leontyev is giving a lecture at the university (№33) .

Finally, a photograph taken in Budapest dates back to 1973, where next to him again is Dima Leontyev, now a teenager (he is 13 years old) (№34) .

But I shied away from, so to speak, the internal logic of the development of Leontiev’s concept.

In essence, his entire creative path is connected with the implementation of two large research and one, so to speak, organizational programs. The first of them was recorded by A.N. himself. in 1940 and is shown on page 58 of the biography. The first volume of the huge, almost completed manuscript was defended as a doctoral dissertation in May 1941; the second and third were lost during the war. But their content was reflected in the “Essay on the Development of the Psyche” (1947) and in a series of articles published in the 40-50s and then partially collected in “Problems of the Development of the Psyche.” By the way, it is no coincidence that the composition of this book repeats the program outlined in 1940. This book is famous - it, as you know, received in 1963 Lenin Prize and went through four editions. I will not talk about this book in more detail - almost every psychology student knows it by heart. I will only draw your attention to the fact that this book is rather retrospective in content - it sums up the fact that has already been done by Leontyev by the end of the 50s. And therefore it cannot in any way be interpreted as a presentation of his theoretical positions of this particular period.

The whole point is that ten years after the publication of this book, both A.N. himself and almost all of his associates felt dissatisfaction with the state of development of activity theory. Therefore, they gathered in Luria’s apartment (or rather, they met three times in November-December 1969) and held, as they once did under Vygotsky, a kind of “internal conference” on the problem of activity - under a tape recorder (the surviving recordings were published in 1990 in collection “Activity approach in psychology: problems and prospects”). And this is where Leontyev began his speech. "If this system of concepts represents known value, that is, is capable of working in psychology, then, apparently, this system needs to be developed - which, in fact, has not been done in recent years. This system of concepts turned out to be frozen, without any movement. And I personally found myself very alone in this regard. The whole movement is based on various problems that are more or less in contact with the problem of activity, more rather than less, but point blank the concept of activity is developed in highest degree not enough..."

So in the early 70s, Leontiev and with him activity psychology found themselves in a situation of crisis. He spoke critically about the “activity approach” more than once. I will cite just a few of these statements. 1976: “You know, the words “activity approach” and other words about activity, lately I have come across a lot and sadly often and not always in a meaning that is sufficiently outlined, defined... They therefore lose their definition, which they have not yet lost 15 and perhaps 20 years ago, when these two or three positions were outlined; It’s clear what could have been discussed, what needed to be developed, but now it’s unclear. Now, when I see the phrase “and from the point of view of the activity approach” - I’ll tell you frankly - it worries me.”

Memoirs of V.A. Ivannikov, dating back to approximately the same period: “A seminar was held at the faculty with a rather narrow composition of Moscow psychologists and, having come from it, I looked into A.N.’s office. He was sitting at his desk and writing something. I was surprised and asked: “Why are you not at the seminar where the activity approach is discussed? In response, he somehow smiled slyly and asked me: “Vyacheslav Andreevich, can you explain to me what this is?” I was confused because I thought it was authored by A.N. And, unable to resist, he said: “Didn’t you introduce this?” A.N. shrugged his shoulders and said that he had never written about the activity approach. At first it seemed to me like a game, but then in his autobiography he didn’t write a word about the activity approach, and in the presentation to the order prepared by the faculty, he corrected our words about the activity approach, but emphasized his authorship in the creation of the theory of activity.”

When I wrote the text of the biography of A.N., no one, including me, was yet aware of his manuscript, dating from February 1973 - the days when Leontyev celebrated his seventieth birthday. This manuscript - something like a diary entry - is so important for understanding the life and scientific destiny A.N. that I will give it almost completely. This is what A.N. writes, reflecting on his biography.

“In 1954, after my first trip to Canada to the International Psychological Congress, I began to formulate a program for the organizational development of psychological science in the country. It seemed to me that our psychology should enter the world “on an equal footing.” This is where the first point of the “program” arose: the organization of a national psychological society, which would become a member of the International Union of Scientific Psychology.

2. Create real university training of specialists - departments or institutes of psychology with the rights of faculties.

3. Determine the status of psychology as a special field of knowledge, i.e. introduce it into the official list of sciences and establish the academic degrees of candidate and doctor of psychological sciences.

4. Include psychology among the sciences represented in the USSR Academy of Sciences.

So, a 4-point program.

Today, on the eve of my 70th birthday, I think that this program is completed and, most importantly, that there is another, further organizational I don't have a program. This is where the line is drawn.

...This was written before February 5, 1973, on the eve of the 70th anniversary. I started writing in the context of thinking about my own life, which is breaking down in real old age (this word still sounds somehow unusual to me; it has not yet truly acquired a personal meaning, although this is strange).

I don’t think that continuing to write in this notebook will result in something like a memoir or testament. Maybe nothing will work out at all. Even most likely - so.

But there is some kind of need for this notebook. And which one exactly will be clear from what is written in it. It will be written down on its own – without any special intention, without a plan or purpose.

Of course, there is also some kind of goal, but only a vague one and - most importantly - which is not at all “realised”...

...The situation is completely different with the program of internal development of psychological science. My general program has only just begun to take shape, but there are still a lot of vague transitions and blank spots in it.

Sometimes it seems that this theoretical program is a matter of the near future and that you just need to find the right way to present it, hone the terminology, clarify definitions, and so on. And more often it seems that this is a blue bird, that its subjective vision is nothing more than an illusion.

Still thinking about the program. She even received a verbal tag - “ProPsy” (that’s what R. Russell called his project for the development of psychology, presented to the executive committee of the International Association in 1970 or ’71). By the way: it was a very weak project.

To a rough approximation, the material for “ProPsy” is presented in a dozen (or so) theoretical articles, but I wrote them without the intention of creating a theoretical program, except, perhaps, the last two articles in “Problems of Philosophy” 72 and the third, not yet completed , from the same cycle; its theme is “activity and personality.”

The conflict of the situation now lies in the fact that a strong intention has been created to complete this cycle, and I am under the oppressive yoke of a psychology textbook for universities. A real “textbook neurosis” is being created!”

You have already realized that the three named articles are precisely the book “Activity. Consciousness. Personality." But the textbook was never written. N.F. Talyzina recalls one conversation with A.N. shortly before his death. “...I don’t remember in what connection the conversation started about the need to rebuild psychology, that our theory of activity is only one chapter of psychology, but we don’t have activity psychology, it must still be built... And I remember saying: “Alexey Nikolaevich, who, if not you, should do this.” He thought about it and said: “You are, of course, right, but for this there is too much to shovel.”

The mid and late 70s are precisely the time of Leontiev’s feverish search for new paths, the concretization of the program outlined in his last monograph. I write about this in detail in the text of Leontyev’s biography. But he was not destined to bring this research program to completion - even at the planning stage, let alone its implementation. And this - as well as the textbook hanging above him - frustrated him. Hence the eerie phrase he said in a speech over the coffin of A.R. Luria: “Yes, you left with a feeling of accomplishment. I couldn't help but say this. Alas, I feel too keenly how bitter it is not to have the right to this feeling.”

I will not talk about his, so to speak, external biography in the last decades of his life. I’ll just show you a photograph of him taken in the 70s, where he sits thoughtfully at some meeting (№35) .

Approaching its end, I would like to think a little aloud about Leontiev.

His last theoretical program was never, in essence, completed, much less implemented. All his colleagues of the older generation passed away almost simultaneously with him - within five years. At the Faculty of Psychology and at the Psychological Institute, tightening of the screws, confusion and vacillation began, Davydov was fired and deprived of his party card, Zinchenko was forced to leave the university, and the generation of the current fifty-year-olds, of course, could not then fully bear on their shoulders the burden that he dropped in 1979 from his shoulders A.N. It was not they who determined the scientific climate at the faculty and in our psychology in general in the 80s. Now is a different time, and a new generation of psychologists has grown up, enriched by the knowledge of all the best in world psychology. Isn’t it time for us to return again to Leontiev’s theoretical and methodological heritage and, even a quarter of a century after his death, to at least partially realize his plans? One of the forms of such implementation could be a permanent Leontief theoretical seminar at the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University, at which we, of course, will be glad to see and hear from psychologists from other universities and scientific institutions.

And finally about A.N. as a person.

From the very day of his death until now there have been and are people who seem to have set themselves life goal discredit the personality and activities of A.N., diligently creating a certain halo around him. For this unimportant purpose, some individual facts of his biography are artificially selected and tendentiously interpreted. And such facts as Leontyev’s selfless struggle for the fate of his direct and even indirect students or his demonstrative refusal to dismiss M.K. Mamardashvili from the faculty; like the “cover” that A.N. created with his considerable weight. For quiet work faculty, - I will refer to the memoirs of Sofia Gustavovna Yakobson, which says: “With the advent of the psychology department, I found myself from this unpleasant Soviet reality, with its denunciations, personal affairs and other fuss, into a completely different world - the world of eternal values, the desire for truth, into the world completely different people"; how almost unbelievable Soviet time the act when, on Leontyev’s initiative, the doctoral dissertation of the secretary of the faculty party bureau was failed - all these and many other facts that paint the true image of A.N. as a crystal honest, deeply decent and extremely principled person and leader, are simply ignored.

No, I’m not talking about this now because my last name is also Leontyev. The students and associates of A.N. present here, who knew him well, will confirm that this difficult person, who knew how to be intolerant, tough and irreconcilable, but when it was necessary for business, flexible, tolerant and compromising - Alexey Nikolaevich Leontyev - was exactly as I just said - honest, courageous, decent and principled - and that is how he remained in our common memory of him.

His former student Fyodor Efimovich Vasilyuk says in his published memoirs about Leontyev: “...We intuitively felt his extraordinary scale, both professional and human... He was a man from some other world, the World of Great People...”.

This extraordinary scale of A.N.’s personality is probably the main thing that makes us return again and again to his thoughts and actions and measure ourselves his measure.

Thanks to Alexey Nikolaevich Leontiev for being was, and because he did for all of us.

Sources:

1. A.A. Leontiev. The life and creative path of A.N. Leontyev. M.: Smysl, 2003.
2. A.A. Leontiev. Alexey Nikolaevich Leontyev talks about himself. // Questions of psychology, 2003, No. 2, pp. 35-36.
3. A.A. Leontiev. Alexey Nikolaevich Leontiev talks about himself, p.36.
4. Decree cit., p.36.
5. Op.cit., p.37.
6. Op. op., p. 35.
7. A.N. Leontiev. On the issue of the development of a child’s arithmetic thinking. // "School 2100". Priority directions development Educational program. Issue 4. M.: Balass, 2000.
8. A.A. Leontiev. Alexey Nikolaevich Leontyev talks about himself, pp. 36-37.
9. Op. op., p. 38.
10. A.A. Leontiev, D.A. Leontiev. The myth of the gap: A.N. Leontiev and L.S. Vygotsky in 1932. // Psychological Journal, 2003, No. 2, p. 19.
11. Quote from the book: Psychological Institute on Mokhovaya. (Historical sketch). M.: ICHP EAV, 1994, p.18.
12. P.Ya.Galperin. To the memories of A.N. Leontiev. // A.N. Leontiev and modern psychology. M.: MSU, 1983, p.241.
13. S.L. Rubinstein. Fundamentals of general psychology. M.: 1940, pp. 317-318.
14. Manuscript (in the archives of the A.N. Leontiev family).
15. Quote according to A.A. Leontiev’s recording (in the archives of A.N. Leontiev’s family).
16. D.B. Elkonin. Memories of a colleague and friend. // A.N. Leontiev and modern psychology. M.: MSU, 1983, p.247.
17. Quote from: Psychological Institute on Mokhovaya, p. 21.
18. 1989, nos. 4 and 5.
19. Manuscript in the archives of the A.N. Leontiev family.
20. It was previously published twice. See A.A. Leontiev. Creative path Alexey Nikolaevich Leontyev. // A.N. Leontiev and modern psychology. M.: MSU, 1983, pp. 17-18; A.A. Leontiev, D.A. Leontiev. A.N. Leontiev and his theory of phylogenesis of the psyche. // A.N. Leontiev. Evolution of the psyche. Selected psychological works. M.-Voronezh: Moscow Psychological and Social Institute, MODEK, 1999, pp. 16-17.
21. See A.A. Leontiev about this. Active mind. M.: Smysl, 2001.
22. A.N. Leontiev. Philosophy of psychology. M.: MSU, 1994, p.247.
23. Ibid., p.274-275.
24. V.A. Ivannikov. A.N. Leontiev through the eyes of a student and employee. // World of Psychology, 1999, No. 1, p. 14.
25. Manuscript (in the archives of the A.N. Leontiev family).
26. N.F. Talyzina. “The activity approach has not yet been implemented. We need to build a psychology of action.” // Journal of practical psychologist, 2003, No. 1-2, p. 15.
27. A.A. Leontiev. The life and creative path of A.N. Leontyev. M.: Smysl, 2003, p. 113.

Alexey Nikolaevich Leontyev

Leontyev Alexey Nikolaevich (1903-1979) - Soviet psychologist, author of one of the variants of the activity approach in psychology. Biography. In 1924 he graduated from the department of social sciences at Moscow University. He worked at the Institute of Psychology and the Academy of Communist Education. One of L. S. Vygotsky’s closest collaborators. From 1931 to 1935 he worked in Kharkov, from 1932 he was a professor at Moscow University, and from 1941 he was a doctor of pedagogical sciences. In 1942-1945 he led scientific work at the Experimental Rehabilitation Hospital near Sverdlovsk. From 1945 to 1950 - head of the department of child psychology at the Institute of Psychology of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR, since 1945 - head of the department of psychology, since 1963 - head of the department of the Faculty of Philosophy of Moscow State University. Since 1966, he has been the dean of the Faculty of Psychology at Moscow State University, which was created on his initiative, and the head of the department of general psychology. Full member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR (1950). Initiator of the creation of the journal “Bulletin of Moscow University. Episode 14. Psychology." Research. At the end of the 1920s, working with L. S. Vygotsky and using the ideas of the cultural-historical concept, he studied the processes of memory, which he interpreted as an objective activity occurring under certain conditions of socio-historical and ontogenetic development. In the early 1930s, he became the head of the Kharkov activity school and began the theoretical and experimental development of the problem of activity. In experiments carried out under his leadership in 1956-1963; It has been shown that, based on adequate action, it is possible to form pitch hearing even in people with poor musical hearing. He proposed to consider activity (correlated with motive) as consisting of actions (having their own goals) and operations (agreed with conditions). The basis of personality, in normal and pathological conditions, was the hierarchy of its motives. Conducted research on a wide range of psychological problems: the emergence and development of the psyche in phylogenesis, the emergence of consciousness in anthropogenesis, mental development in ontogenesis, the structure of activity and consciousness, the motivational and semantic sphere of personality, methodology and history of psychology.

Kondakov I.M. Psychology. Illustrated Dictionary. // THEM. Kondakov. – 2nd ed. add. And reworked. – St. Petersburg, 2007, p. 295.

Works: Development of memory, M.; L., 1931; Restoring movement. M„ 1945; Essay on the development of the psyche. M., 1947; Essays on the psychology of children. M., 1950; Problems of mental development, 1959; Activity, consciousness, personality. M., 1975.

Literature: A. N. Leontiev and modern psychology / Ed. A. V. Zaporozhets and others. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1983; A. N. Leontiev// Psychology: Biographical Bibliographical Dictionary / Ed. N. Sheehy, E. J. Chapman, W, A. Conroy. St. Petersburg: Eurasia, 1999.

Leontyev Alexey Nikolaevich (5(18/02/1903, Moscow - 21/01/1979, Moscow) - psychologist, philosopher and teacher. Graduated public Sciences of Moscow University (1924), worked at the Psychological Institute and other Moscow scientific institutions (1924-1930), head of the sector of the All-Ukrainian Psychoneurological Academy and head of the department of the Kharkov Pedagogical Institute (1930-1935). In 1936-1940 simultaneously works in Moscow, at the Psychological Institute, and at the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute named after. N.K. Krupskaya. Doctor of Psychological Sciences (1940). Since 1943 - head. laboratory, then the department of child psychology at the Institute of Psychology, prof., and since 1949 - head. Department of Psychology, Moscow University. Full member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR (1950), the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR (1968), in the 50s. was academician-secretary and vice-president of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR. Since 1966 - Dean of the Faculty of Psychology at Moscow University and Head. Department of General Psychology. Honorary doctor of a number of foreign universities, including the Sorbonne.

The leitmotif of Leontiev's scientific creativity was the development of the philosophical and methodological foundations of psychological science. Leontyev's development as a scientist occurred in the 20s under the influence of his teacher Vygotsky, who literally blew up traditional psychology with his methodological, theoretical and experimental work, who laid the foundations for a new psychology, which he associated with Marxism. With his research in the late 20s, Leontiev also contributed to the development of the cultural-historical approach to the formation of human psyche. However, already in the early 30s, Leontiev, without breaking with the cultural-historical approach, began to discuss with Vygotsky about the ways of its further development. If for Vygotsky the main subject of study was consciousness, then for Leontiev the analysis of human practice and life activity that forms consciousness was more important. He sought to establish the idea of ​​the priority role of practice in the formation of the psyche and to understand the patterns of this formation in historical and individual development.

Leontyev contrasts the Cartesian opposition “external - internal” that dominated in old psychology with the thesis about the unity of the structure of external and internal processes, introducing the categorical pair “process - image”. He develops the category of activity as a real (in the Hegelian sense) relationship of a person to the world, which is not in the strict sense individual, but is mediated by relationships with other people and socioculturally developed forms of practice. The idea that the formation of mental processes and functions occurs in activity and through activity served as the basis for numerous experimental studies of the development and formation of mental functions (30-60s). They laid the foundation for a number of psychological and pedagogical concepts of developmental training and education, which have become widespread in pedagogical practice in the last decade.

The late 30s and early 40s saw the development of Leontiev’s ideas about the structure of activity, according to which three psychological levels are distinguished in activity: the activity itself (the act of activity), distinguished by the criterion of its motive; actions identified according to the criterion of focus on achieving conscious goals; operations related to the conditions for carrying out activities. For analysis consciousness The dichotomy “meaning - personal meaning” introduced by Leontiev turned out to be fundamentally important, the first pole of which characterizes the “impersonal”, universal, socio-culturally acquired content of consciousness, and the second - its bias, subjectivity, determined by the unique individual experience and structure of motivation.

In the second half of the 50s and 60s, Leontyev formulated theses about the systemic structure of the psyche, as well as about the unity of practical and “internal” mental activity. In essence, we are talking about a single activity that can move from an external, expanded form to an internal, collapsed one (interiorization), and vice versa (exheriorization), and can simultaneously include the actual mental and external (extracerebral) components. In 1959, the 1st edition of Leontiev’s book “Problems of Psychic Development” was published, summarizing the results of these studies.

In the 60-70s, Leontiev continued to develop the so-called activity approach or “general psychological theory of activity.” He uses the apparatus of activity theory to analyze perception, thinking, mental reflection in the broad sense of the word.

At the end of the 60s, Leontiev turned to the problem of personality, considering it within the framework of a system that unites activity and consciousness. In 1975, Leontyev’s book “Activity. Consciousness. Personality”, in which he strives to “comprehend the categories that are most important for the construction of an integral system of psychology as a specific science about the generation, functioning and structure of the mental reflection of reality, which mediates the lives of individuals” (p. 12). The category of activity is considered as a way to overcome the “postulate of immediacy” of the influence of external stimuli on the individual psyche, which found its most complete expression in the behaviorist formula “stimulus - response”. The key feature of activity is its objectivity, in the understanding of which Leontyev relies on the ideas of Hegel and the early Marx. Consciousness is what mediates and regulates the activity of the subject. It is multidimensional. In its structure, 3 main components are distinguished: sensory tissue, which serves as material for constructing a subjective image of the world, meaning that connects individual consciousness with social experience or social memory, and personal meaning, expressing the connection of consciousness with the real life of the subject. The starting point for the analysis of personality is also activity, or rather, a system of activities that carry out various relationships of the subject with the world. Their hierarchy, or rather, the hierarchy of motives or meanings, sets the structure of a person’s personality.

In the 70s, Leontiev again turned to the problems of perception and mental reflection, using as the key concept the image of the world, behind which, first of all, is the idea of ​​​​the continuity of the perceived picture of reality. It is impossible to perceive a separate object without perceiving it in the holistic context of the image of the world. This context ultimately guides the process of perception and recognition. Leontiev created his own school in psychology, his works had a noticeable influence on philosophers, educators, cultural scientists and representatives of other humanities. In 1986, the International Society for Research in Activity Theory was created.

D. A. Leontiev, A. A. Leontiev

Russian philosophy. Encyclopedia. Ed. second, modified and expanded. Under the general editorship of M.A. Olive. Comp. P.P. Apryshko, A.P. Polyakov. – M., 2014, p. 327-328.

Read further:

Philosophers, lovers of wisdom (biographical index).

Essays:

Memory development. M., 1931;

Restoring movement. M., 1945 (co-author);

Problems of mental development. M., 1959, 1965, 1972,1981;

Activity. Consciousness. Personality. M.; 1975, 1977;

Favorite psychological works: In 2 vols. M., 1983;

Philosophy of psychology. M., 1994;

Lectures on general psychology. M., 2000;

The formation of activity psychology: Early works. M., 2003.

Literature:

A. N. Leontiev and modern psychology / Ed. A. V. Zaporozhets and others. M.: Moscow State University Publishing House, 1983;

A. N. Leontiev// Psychology: Biographical Bibliographical Dictionary / Ed. N. Sheehy, E. J. Chapman, W, A. Conroy. St. Petersburg: Eurasia, 1999.

Alexey Nikolaevich Leontiev (1903-1979) - Russian psychologist, Doctor of Psychology, professor, full member APN RSFSR (1950), APN USSR (1968), honorary member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1973), honorary doctor of the University of Paris (1968).

Developed a general psychological theory of activity.

Main scientific works: “Development of Memory” (1931), “Restoration of Movement” together with A.V. Zaporozhets (1945), “Essay on the development of the psyche” (1947), “Needs and motives of activity” (1956), “Problems of the development of the psyche” (1959, 1965), “About historical approach to the study of the human psyche" (1959), "Needs, motives and emotions" (1971), "Activity. Consciousness. Personality" (1975).

The main theoretical principles of the teachings of A.N. Leontieva:
psychology is a specific science about the generation, functioning and structure of the mental reflection of reality, which mediates the life of individuals;
objective criterion psyche is the ability of living organisms to respond to abiotic (or biologically neutral) influences;
abiotic influences perform a signaling function in relation to biologically significant stimuli;
irritability is the ability of living organisms to respond to biologically significant influences, and sensitivity is the ability of organisms to reflect influences that are biologically neutral, but objectively related to biological properties;
V evolutionary development psyche there are three stages: 1) the stage of the elementary sensory psyche, 2) the stage of the perceptual psyche, 3) the stage of intelligence;
the development of the animal psyche is a process of activity development;
Features of animal activity are:
a) all animal activity is determined by biological models;
b) all animal activity is limited to visual specific situations;
c) the basis of animal behavior in all spheres of life, including language and communication, is formed by hereditary species programs. Their learning is limited to acquiring individual experience, thanks to which species programs adapt to the specific conditions of an individual’s existence;
d) animals do not have the consolidation, accumulation and transmission of generational experience in material form, i.e. in the form of material culture;
the activity of the subject is that meaningful process in which the real connections of the subject with the objective world are realized and which mediates the connections between the object and the subject influencing it;
human activity is included in the system public relations and conditions;
the main characteristic of activity is its objectivity; activity is determined by the object, is subordinated to it, is likened to it;
activity is the process of interaction of a living being with the surrounding world, allowing it to satisfy its vital needs;
consciousness cannot be considered as closed in itself: it must be brought into the activity of the subject;
behavior and activity cannot be considered in isolation from human consciousness (the principle of the unity of consciousness and behavior, consciousness and activity);
activity is an active, purposeful process (the principle of activity activity);
human actions are objective; they realize social goals (the principle of objectivity human activity and the principle of its social conditioning).

A.N. Leontiev on the structure of activity:
human activity has a complex hierarchical structure and includes the following levels: I - level of special activities (or special types activities); II - level of action; III - level of operations; IV - level of psychophysiological functions;
human activity is inextricably linked with his needs and motives. Need is a state of a person that expresses his dependence on material and spiritual objects and conditions of existence that are outside the individual. In psychology, a person’s need is considered as the experience of need for what is necessary to maintain the life of his body and the development of his personality. A motive is a form of manifestation of a need, an incentive for a certain activity, the object for which this activity is carried out. Motive according to A.N. Leontiev - this is an objectified need;
activity as a whole is a unit of human life, activity that meets a specific motive;
one or another motive prompts a person to set a task, to identify a goal that, when presented in certain conditions, requires the performance of an action aimed at creating or obtaining an object that meets the requirements of the motive and satisfies the need. The goal is the conceivable result of the activity presented to him;
action like component activity meets a perceived goal. Any activity is carried out in the form of actions or a chain of actions;
activity and action are not strictly related to each other. The same activity can be implemented different actions, and the same action can be included in different kinds activities;
action, having a specific goal, is carried out different ways depending on the conditions in which this action is performed. The ways in which actions are carried out are called operations. Operations are transformed actions that have become automated, which, as a rule, are not conscious, for example, when a child learns to write letters, this writing of a letter is for him an action directed by a conscious goal - to write the letter correctly. But, having mastered this action, the child uses writing letters as a way to write letters and, therefore, writing letters turns from an action into an operation;
operations are of two types: the first arise from action through their automation, the second arise through adaptation, adaptation to environmental conditions, through direct imitation;
a goal given under certain conditions is called a task in activity theory;
the relationship between structural and motivational components activities are presented in Figure 9.
an activity can lose its motive and turn into an action, and an action, when its purpose changes, can turn into an operation. In this case, we talk about consolidation of units of activity. For example, when learning to drive a car, initially each operation (for example, changing gears) is formed as an action subordinate to a conscious goal. Subsequently, this action (shifting gears) is included in another action that has a complex operational composition, for example, in the action of changing the driving mode. Now shifting gears becomes one of the ways of its implementation - the operation that implements it, and it ceases to be carried out as a special purposeful process: its goal is not highlighted. For the driver’s consciousness, shifting gears under normal conditions does not seem to exist at all;
The results of the actions that make up the activity, under certain conditions, turn out to be more significant than the motive of the activity in which they are included. Then action becomes activity. In this case, we talk about splitting units of activity into smaller units. Thus, a child may complete homework on time initially only in order to go for a walk. But with systematic learning and receiving positive marks for his work, which increase his student “prestige,” his interest in the subjects he is studying awakens, and he now begins to prepare lessons in order to better understand the content of the material. The action of preparing lessons acquired its motive and became an activity. This general psychological mechanism for the development of actions by A.N. Leontyev called it “a shift of motive to a goal” (or the transformation of a goal into a motive). The essence of this mechanism is that a goal, previously driven to its implementation by some motive, acquires independent force over time, i.e. itself becomes a motive. The fragmentation of units of activity can also manifest itself in the transformation of operations into actions. For example, during a conversation a person cannot find the right word, i.e. what was an operation became an action subordinated to a conscious goal.

A.N. Leontyev on the essence and structure of consciousness:
consciousness in its immediacy is the picture of the world that is revealed to the subject, in which he himself, his actions and states are included;
Initially, consciousness exists only in the form of a mental image that reveals the world around it to the subject, but activity remains practical, external. At a later stage, activity also becomes the subject of consciousness: the actions of other people, and through them, the subject’s own actions, are realized. Now they communicate using gestures or vocal speech. This is a prerequisite for the generation internal actions and operations taking place in the mind, on the “plane of consciousness.” Consciousness - the image also becomes consciousness - activity. It is in this fullness that consciousness begins to seem emancipated from external, sensory-practical activity and, moreover, in control of it;
another major change undergoes consciousness in the course of historical development. It lies in the destruction of the initial unity of the consciousness of the work collective (for example, a community) and the consciousness of the individuals forming it. At the same time, the psychological characteristics of individual consciousness can only be understood through their connections with the social relations in which the individual is involved;
the structure of consciousness includes: the sensory tissue of consciousness, meanings and personal meanings;
The sensory fabric of consciousness forms a sensory composition of specific images of reality, actually perceived or emerging in memory, related to the future or only imaginary. These images differ in their modality, sensory tone, degree of clarity, greater or lesser stability, etc.;
special function sensory images of consciousness is that they give reality to the conscious picture of the world that is revealed to the subject. It is thanks to the sensory content of consciousness that the world appears for the subject as existing not in consciousness, but outside his consciousness - as an objective “field” and the object of his activity;
sensory images represent a universal form of mental reflection generated by the objective activity of the subject. However, in humans, sensory images acquire a new quality, namely, their meaning. Meanings are the most important “formators” of human consciousness;
meanings refract the world in human consciousness. Although language is the carrier of meanings, language is not the demiurge of meanings. Behind linguistic meanings socially developed methods (operations) of action are hidden, in the process of which people change and cognize objective reality;
the meanings represent the ideal form of existence of the objective world, its properties, connections and relationships, transformed and folded into the matter of language, revealed by the total social practice. Therefore, the values ​​themselves, i.e. in abstraction from their functioning in the individual consciousness, are just as “non-psychological” as the socially cognized reality that lies behind them;
one should distinguish between the perceived objective meaning and its meaning for the subject. IN the latter case talk about personal meaning. In other words, personal meaning is the meaning of a particular phenomenon for a specific person. Personal meaning creates partiality of consciousness. Unlike meanings, personal meanings do not have their own “non-psychological existence”;
a person’s consciousness, like his activity itself, is not a certain sum of its constituent parts, i.e. it is not additive. This is not a plane, not even a container filled with images and processes. These are not connections between its individual “units”, but internal movement its constituents, included in general movement activities that carry out the real life of an individual in society. Human activity constitutes the substance of his consciousness. Based on the above, the relationship between the various components of activity can be presented as follows (Fig. 10):

Ideas of A.N. Leontiev's ideas about the structure of consciousness were developed in domestic psychology his student - V.Ya. Zinchenko. V.P. Zinchenko distinguishes three layers of consciousness: existential (or existential-activity), reflexive (or reflexive-contemplative) and spiritual.

The existential layer of consciousness includes the sensory fabric of the image and the biodynamic fabric, and the reflective layer includes meanings and meanings.
The concepts of sensory fabric of image, meaning and personal meaning are disclosed above. Let us consider the concepts introduced into the psychology of consciousness by V.P. Zinchenko.

Biodynamic fabric is a generic name for various characteristics living movement and objective action. Biodynamic fabric is an observable and recorded external form of living movement. The term "fabric" in this context is used to emphasize the idea that it is the material from which purposeful, voluntary movements and actions are constructed.

The spiritual layer of consciousness in the structure of consciousness, according to V.P. Zinchenko, plays a leading role, animating and inspiring the existential and reflective layer. In the spiritual layer of consciousness, human subjectivity is represented by the “I” in its various modifications and incarnations. The “Other” or, more precisely, “You” acts as an objective forming factor in the spiritual layer of consciousness.

The spiritual layer of consciousness is constructed by the I-Thou relationship and is formed earlier or, at least, simultaneously with the existential and reflexive layers.

A. N. Leontiev on the relationship between consciousness and motives:
motives can be realized, but, as a rule, they are not realized, i.e. all motives can be divided into two large classes - conscious and unconscious;
awareness of motives is special activity, special inner work;
unconscious motives “manifest” in consciousness in special forms - in the form of emotions and in the form of personal meanings. Emotions are a reflection of the relationship between the result of an activity and its motive. If, from the point of view of motive, the activity is successful, positive emotions arise, if unsuccessful, negative emotions arise. Personal meaning is the experience of increased subjective significance of an object, action or event that finds itself in the field of action of the leading motive;
a person's motives form hierarchical system. Usually the hierarchical relationships of motives are not fully realized. They manifest themselves in situations of conflict of motives.

A.N. Leontyev on the relationship between internal and external activities:
internal actions are actions that prepare external actions. They save human effort, making it possible to quickly select the desired action, give a person the opportunity to avoid rude, and sometimes fatal mistakes;
internal activity has fundamentally the same structure as external activity, and differs from it only in the form of its occurrence (the principle of the unity of internal and external activity);
internal activity arose from external practical activity through the process of internalization (or the transfer of corresponding actions to the mental plane, i.e. their assimilation);
internal actions are performed not with real objects, but with their images, and instead of a real product, a mental result is obtained;
To successfully reproduce any action “in the mind,” you must master it in material terms and first obtain a real result. During internalization, external activity, although it does not change its fundamental structure, is greatly transformed and reduced, which allows it to be carried out much faster;
external activity turns into internal, and internal into external (the principle of mutual transitions of external activity into internal and vice versa).

A.N. Leontyev about personality:
personality = individual; this is a special quality that is acquired by an individual in society, in the totality of relationships, social in nature, in which the individual is involved;
personality is a systemic and therefore “supersensible” quality, although the bearer of this quality is a completely sensual, bodily individual with all his innate and acquired properties. They, these properties, constitute only the conditions (prerequisites) for the formation and functioning of the personality, as well as the external conditions and circumstances of life that befall the individual;
from this point of view, the problem of personality forms a new psychological dimension:
a) other than the dimension in which research is carried out on certain mental processes, individual properties and human conditions;
b) this is a study of his place, position in the system of public relations, communications that open to him;
c) this is a study of what, for what and how a person uses what he received from birth and acquired by him;
the anthropological properties of an individual act not as defining personality or included in its structure, but as genetically given conditions for the formation of personality and, at the same time, as something that determines not its psychological traits, but only the forms and methods of their manifestation;
people are not born with personality, become a person,
personality is a relatively late product of the socio-historical and ontogenetic development of man;
personality is a special human formation;
the real basis of a person’s personality is the totality of his social relations to the world, those relationships that are realized by his activities, more precisely, the totality of his diverse activities;
the formation of personality is the formation of a coherent system of personal meanings;
there are three main personality parameters: 1) the breadth of a person’s connections with the world; 2) the degree of ROS hierarchy and 3) their general structure;
personality is born twice:
a) the first birth refers to preschool age and is marked by the establishment of the first hierarchical relations between motives, the first subordination of immediate impulses to social norms;
b) the rebirth of personality begins in adolescence and is expressed in the emergence of the desire and ability to realize one’s motives, as well as to carry out active work to subordinate and resubordinate them. The rebirth of personal identity presupposes the presence of self-awareness.

Thus, A.N. Leontiev made a huge contribution to the development of domestic and world psychology, and his ideas are being developed by scientists to this day.

At the same time, the following provisions of the teachings of A.N. seem debatable. Leontieva:
a) motive is an objectified need;
b) motives are generally not recognized;
c) personality is a systemic quality.

Alexey Nikolaevich Leontyev (1903-1979) - an outstanding Soviet psychologist, full member of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, professor. Together with L. S. Vygotsky and A. R. Luria, he developed a cultural-historical theory, conducted a series of experimental studies revealing the mechanism of formation of higher mental functions (voluntary attention, memory) as a process of “growing”, internalization external forms weapon-mediated actions in internal mental processes. Experimental and theoretical work devoted to problems of mental development, problems of engineering psychology, as well as the psychology of perception, thinking, etc. He put forward a general psychological theory of activity - a new direction in psychological science. Based on the scheme of activity structure proposed by Leontiev, a wide range of mental functions (perception, thinking, memory, attention) were studied.

1. Biography of Leontyev A.N.

Alexey Nikolaevich Leontyev was born in Moscow on February 5, 1903 in the family of an employee. After graduating from a real school, he entered the Faculty of Social Sciences of Moscow University, from which, according to the official version, he graduated in 1924. However, as A.A. writes about it. Leontyev and D.A. Leontyev (the scientist’s son and grandson, also psychologists) in the comments to his biography, in fact, he failed to graduate from the university, he was expelled.

There are two versions about the reasons. More interesting: as a student, in 1923 he filled out some kind of questionnaire and to the question “How do you feel about Soviet power?” allegedly replied: “I consider it historically necessary.” This is what he told his son himself. The second version: Leontyev publicly asked everyone’s unloved lecturer on the history of philosophy how to treat the bourgeois philosopher Wallace, a biologizer and generally an anti-Marxist. The not very educated lecturer, afraid that he would be caught lacking erudition, spent a long time and convincingly explaining to the breathless audience the errors of this bourgeois philosopher, invented by the students on the eve of the lecture. This version also goes back to the oral memoirs of A.N. Leontyev.

At the university, Leontyev listened to lectures by a variety of scientists. Among them were the philosopher and psychologist G.G. Shpet, philologist P.S. Preobrazhensky, historians M.N. Pokrovsky and D.M. Petrushevsky, historian of socialism V.P. Volgin. In the Communist Auditorium of Moscow State University, N.I. taught a course on historical materialism for the first time. Bukharin. Leontyev also had a chance to listen to lectures by I.V. Stalin on the national issue, about which, however, half a century later he spoke more than restrainedly.

Initially, Leontyev was attracted to philosophy. There was a need to comprehend ideologically everything that was happening in the country before his eyes. He owes his turn to psychology to G.I. Chelpanov, on whose initiative he wrote the first scientific works– “James' Doctrine of Ideomotor Acts” (it has survived) and an unsurvived work on Spencer.

Leontyev was lucky: he got a job at the Psychological Institute, where even after Chelpanov left, first-class scientists continued to work - N.A. Bernstein, M.A. Reisner, P.P. Blonsky, from the youth - A.R. Luria, and since 1924 - L.S. Vygotsky.

There is a textbook version: young psychologists Luria and Leontiev came to Vygotsky, and Vygotsky’s school began. In fact, young psychologists Vygotsky and Leontiev came to Luria. At first, this circle was headed by Luria, a senior official at the institute, already a well-known psychologist, who by that time had several published books. Then a regrouping took place, and Vygotsky became the leader.

Leontiev's very first publications were in line with Luria's research. These works, devoted to affects, conjugate motor techniques, etc., were carried out under the leadership of Luria and in collaboration with him. Only after several publications of this kind do research in Vygotsky’s cultural-historical paradigm begin (Leontiev’s first publication on this topic dates back to 1929).

By the end of the 20s, an unfavorable situation began to develop in science. Leontyev lost his job, and in all the Moscow institutions with which he collaborated. Around the same time, the People's Commissariat of Health of Ukraine decided to organize a psychology sector at the Ukrainian Psychoneurological Institute, and later, in 1932, at the All-Ukrainian Psychoneurological Academy (it was located in Kharkov, which was then the capital of the republic).

The post of head of the sector was offered to Luria, the post of head of the department of children's and genetic psychology- Leontyev. However, Luria soon returned to Moscow, and Leontyev did almost all the work. In Kharkov, he simultaneously headed the department of psychology at the Pedagogical Institute and the department of psychology at the Research Institute of Pedagogy. The famous Kharkov school arose, which some researchers consider an offshoot of Vygotsky’s school, while others consider it a relatively independent scientific entity.

In the spring of 1934, shortly before his death, Vygotsky took several steps to gather all his students - Moscow, Kharkov and others - in one laboratory at the All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine (VIEM). Vygotsky himself was no longer able to head it (he died in the early summer of 1934), and Leontiev became the head of the laboratory, leaving Kharkov for this. But he didn't last long there.

After a report to the scientific council of this institute about psychological research speech (the text of the report was published in the first volume of his selected works, and today everyone can form an unbiased opinion about it) Leontiev was accused of all possible methodological sins (the matter reached the city party committee!), after which the laboratory was closed and Leontiev was fired.

Leontyev was again left without work. He collaborated at a small research institute at VKIP - the Higher Communist Institute of Education, studied the psychology of art perception at GITIS and VGIK, where he constantly communicated with S.M. Eisenstein (they knew each other before, from the late 20s, when Leontyev taught at VGIK, until the latter was declared a nest of idealists and Trotskyists with understandable consequences).

In July 1936, the famous resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks "On pedological perversions in the system of People's Commissariat of Education" came into force. This resolution meant complete destruction child and educational psychology and “worthily” crowned a series of resolutions of the Central Committee of the early 30s, which turned back the Soviet school, abolished all innovations and experiments and made the former democratic school authoritarian and militarized.

The ideologists of the democratic school, Vygotsky and Blonsky, especially suffered. Vygotsky, however, posthumously. And some of those who had previously declared themselves students of Vygotsky began to condemn him and their mistakes with no less enthusiasm.

However, neither Luria, nor Leontyev, nor other genuine disciples of Vygotsky, no matter how much pressure was put on them, said not a single bad word about Vygotsky, either verbally or in print, and in general they never changed their views. Oddly enough, they all nevertheless survived. But VKIP was closed, and Leontyev was again left without work.

Just at this time, K.N. again became the director of the Institute of Psychology. Kornilov, and he took Leontyev to work. Of course, there could be no talk of any methodological issues. Leontyev dealt with very specific topics: the perception of drawing (continuation of research from the Kharkov school) and the photosensitivity of the skin.

Leontiev's doctoral dissertation on the topic "Development of the psyche" was conceived by him as grandiose project. Two voluminous volumes were written, the third, dedicated to the ontogenesis of the psyche, was partially prepared. But B.M. Teplov convinced Leontyev that what he had was enough for protection.

In 1940, the dissertation in two volumes was defended. Its first volume was a theoretical and experimental study of the emergence of sensitivity, which was included practically unchanged in all editions of the book “Problems of Psychic Development.” The most interesting thing is that, as can be clearly seen today, this research is parapsychological - it is dedicated to learning to perceive light with your hands! Of course, Leontiev presented this research differently, putting on a materialistic gloss and talking about the degeneration of certain cells in the epidermis of the palms, but this quasi-physiological interpretation of the clearly proven facts of the development of the ability to perceive light signals with the fingers is no more convincing than the assumption of the extrasensory nature of this phenomenon.

The second volume was devoted to the development of the psyche in the animal world. "Problems of Psychic Development" included relatively small excerpts this part of the dissertation, and the most interesting fragments that remained outside the scope of textbook texts were published posthumously in the collection scientific heritage Leontiev "Philosophy of Psychology" (1994).

Another work that dates back to approximately the same period (1938–1942) is his “Methodological Notebooks,” notes for himself, which were included in a fairly complete form in the book “Philosophy of Psychology.” They are devoted to a variety of problems.

It is characteristic that many of the things described here briefly were first made public decades later or were not published at all. For example, Leontiev’s first publication on personality problems dates back to 1968. In its completed form, his views on personality, which formed the last chapter of the book “Activity. Consciousness. Personality,” were published in 1974. But almost everything included in this chapter was written down and justified in the “Methodological Notebooks” around 1940, that is, simultaneously with the publication of the first Western generalizing monographs on the problem of personality by K. Levin (1935), G. Allport (1937), G. Murray (1938).

In our country, it was impossible to consider the problem of personality in this vein (through the concept of personal meaning). The concept of “personality” has been found in the works of a number of psychologists - Rubinstein, Ananyev and others - since the late 40s in a single meaning - as denoting what is socially typical in a person (“the totality of social relations”), in contrast to character, expressing an individually unique .

If we turn this formula a little differently, taking into account the social context, the ideological background of such an understanding is revealed: what is individually unique in a person is permissible only at the level of character, but at the level of personality, all Soviet people are obliged to be socially typical. It was impossible to talk seriously about personality back then. Therefore, Leontiev’s theory of personality “held out” for three decades.

At the beginning of July 1941, like many other Moscow scientists, Leontyev joined the ranks of the people's militia. However, already in September General base recalls him to carry out special defense assignments. At the very end of 1941, Moscow University, including the Institute of Psychology that was part of it at that time, was evacuated first to Ashgabat, then to Sverdlovsk.

Near Sverdlovsk, in Kisegach and Kaurovsk, two experimental hospitals were established. The first was headed by Luria as a scientific director, the second by Leontyev. A.V. worked there. Zaporozhets, P.Ya. Galperin, S.Ya. Rubinstein and many others. It was a rehabilitation hospital that focused on restoring movement after injury. This material brilliantly demonstrated not only practical significance theory of activity, but also the absolute adequacy and fruitfulness of the physiological theory of N.A. Bernstein, who a few years later, at the end of the forties, was completely excommunicated from science, and it is unknown what would have happened to him if Leontyev had not taken him on as an employee in the psychology department.

The practical result of the work of the experimental hospitals was that the time for the wounded to return to duty was reduced several times through the use of techniques developed on the basis of the activity approach and Bernstein's theory.

At the end of the war, already a doctor of science and head of a laboratory at the Institute of Psychology, Leontyev published a small book based on his dissertation, “Essay on the Development of the Psyche.” Immediately, in 1948, a devastating review of it came out, and in the fall another “discussion” was organized. Many now widely known psychologists spoke in it, accusing the author of the book of idealism. But Leontyev’s comrades came to his defense, and the discussion had no consequences for him. Moreover, he was accepted into the party.

Here is what his son and grandson, the most knowledgeable biographers, write about this: “He hardly did it for career reasons - rather, it was an act of self-preservation. But the fact remains a fact. We must not forget that Alexey Nikolaevich, like his teacher Vygotsky, was a convinced Marxist, although by no means orthodox... Membership in the party, of course, contributed to the fact that from the early 50s Leontyev became academician-secretary of the Psychology Department of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences, then academician-secretary of the entire academy, and later its vice-president. .."

In 1955, the journal “Questions of Psychology” began to be published. During these years, Leontyev published a lot, and in 1959 the first edition of “Problems of Psychic Development” was published. Judging by the number of publications, the late 50s and early 60s are his most productive period.

Since 1954, the restoration of international relations began Soviet psychologists. For the first time after a long break, a fairly representative delegation of Soviet psychologists took part in the next International Psychological Congress in Montreal. It included Leontyev, Teplov, Zaporozhets, Asratyan, Sokolov and Kostyuk. Since that time, Leontyev has devoted a lot of time and effort to international relations. The culmination of this activity was the International Psychological Congress in Moscow, organized by him in 1966, of which he was president.

At the end of his life, Leontyev many times turned to the history of Soviet (and partly world) psychological science. This was probably primarily due to personal motives. On the one hand, always faithful to the memory of his teacher Vygotsky, he sought to popularize his work and, at the same time, to identify the most promising ideas in it, as well as to show the continuity of the ideas of Vygotsky and his school. On the other hand, it is natural to strive for reflection on one’s scientific activities. One way or another, Leontiev - partly in co-authorship with Luria - owns a number of historical and psychological publications that have completely independent theoretical value.

Today, historical works are being written about him (for example, “Leontiev and modern psychology,” 1983; “Traditions and prospects of the activity approach in psychology. School of A.N. Leontiev,” 1999). His works are to this day systematically republished abroad, and sometimes even here, despite the craze for pseudo-psychological manipulations. In a telegram sent upon Leontiev's death, Jean Piaget called him "great." And, as you know, the wise Swiss did not waste words.

2. The theory of the emergence of activity according to A. Leontiev

Leontiev considers personality in the context of the generation, functioning and structure of mental reflection in the processes of activity.

The genetic source is external, objective, sensory-practical activity, from which all types of internal mental activity of the individual and consciousness are derived. Both of these forms have a socio-historical origin and are fundamentally general structure. The constitutive characteristic of activity is objectivity. Initially, activity is determined by the object, and then it is mediated and regulated by its image as its subjective product.

Activities include such mutually transforming units as need<=>motive<=>target<=>conditions and related activities<=>actions<=>operations. By action we mean a process whose object and motive do not coincide with each other. an action becomes meaningless if the motive and object are not reflected in the psyche of the subject. Action is internally connected with personal meaning. The psychological fusion of individual private actions into a single action represents the transformation of the latter into operations, and the content, which previously occupied the place of the conscious goals of private actions, takes the place of the conditions for its implementation in the structure of the action. Another type of operation is born from the simple adaptation of an action to the conditions of its implementation. Operations are the quality of action that forms actions. The genesis of the operation lies in the relationship of actions, their inclusion of one another.

Along with the birth of the action of this main “unit” of human activity, the main, social in nature “unit” of the human psyche arises - the meaning for a person, what his activity is directed towards. The genesis, development and functioning of consciousness are derived from one or another level of development of the forms and functions of activity. Along with the change in the structure of a person’s activity, the internal structure of his consciousness also changes.

The emergence of a system of subordinate actions, i.e., a complex action, marks the transition from a conscious goal to a conscious condition of action, the emergence of levels of awareness. The division of labor and production specialization give rise to a “shift of motive to goal” and the transformation of action into activity. There is a birth of new motives and needs, which entails a qualitative differentiation of awareness. Next, a transition to internal mental processes is assumed, internal actions appear, and subsequently - formed according to general law shifting motives - internal activities and internal operations. Activity that is ideal in its form is not fundamentally separated from external, practical activity, and both of them are meaningful and meaning-forming processes. The main processes of activity are the internalization of its form, leading to subjective image reality, and the exteriorization of its internal form as the objectification of the image and its transition into an objective ideal property subject.

Meaning is the central concept with the help of which the situational development of motivation is explained and given psychological interpretation processes of meaning formation and regulation of activity.

Personality is an internal moment of activity, some unique unity that plays the role of the highest integrating authority that controls mental processes, a holistic psychol. a new formation that is formed in the life relationships of an individual as a result of the transformation of his activities. Personality first appears in society. Man enters history as an individual endowed with natural properties and abilities, and he becomes a person only as a subject of societies and relationships.

The concept of “personality” includes a relatively late product of the socio-historical and ontogenetic development of mankind. Social relations are realized by a set of various activities. Personality is characterized by hierarchical relationships of activities, behind which there are relationships of motives. The latter is born twice: the first time when it arises conscious personality, the second time - when the child manifests in obvious forms multimotivation and subordination of his actions.

The formation of personality is the formation of personal meanings. Personality psychology is crowned by the problem of self-awareness, since the main thing is awareness of oneself in the system of societies and relationships. Personality is what a person creates from himself, affirming his human life.

At each age stage of personality development, a specific type of activity is presented that acquires leading value in the formation of new mental processes and properties of the child’s personality. Leontiev's fundamental contribution to child and developmental psychology was the development of the problem of leading activity. This outstanding scientist not only characterized the change in leading activities in the process of child development, but also laid the foundation for studying the mechanisms of transformation of one leading activity into another.

conclusions

Leontyev A.N. made a huge contribution to domestic and world psychology. Developed in the 20s. together with L.S. Vygotsky and A.R. Luria cultural-historical theory, conducted a series of experimental studies revealing the mechanism of formation of higher mental functions (voluntary attention, memory) as a process of “growing”, interiorization of external forms of instrumentally mediated actions into internal mental processes. Experimental and theoretical works are devoted to problems of mental development (its genesis, biological evolution and socio-historical development, development of the child’s psyche), problems of engineering psychology, as well as the psychology of perception, thinking, etc.

He put forward a general psychological theory of activity - a new direction in psychological science. Based on the scheme of activity structure proposed by Leontyev, a wide range of mental functions (perception, thinking, memory, attention) was studied, and consciousness and personality were studied. The concept of L.’s activities was developed in various industries psychology (general, children's, pedagogical, medical, social), which in turn enriched it with new data. The position formulated by Leontyev on leading activity and its determining influence on the development of the child’s psyche served as the basis for the concept of periodization of children’s mental development, put forward by D.B. Elkonin, and at the same time slowed down the study of congenital psychological differences. With the active participation of Leontyev, a series of psychological discussions took place, in which he defended the point of view that the psyche is formed mainly by external factors.

Critics also point to the fact that Leontiev was one of the most consistent supporters of the ideologization of Soviet psychology. In all his works, including in the programmatic book “Activity, Consciousness, Personality” (1975), he consistently pursued the thesis: “In the modern world, psychology fulfills ideological function and serves class interests; It’s impossible not to take this into account.”

Literature

1. Leontyev A. N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. – M., 1982 (1975). (The problem of activity in psychology: 73-123. Activity and consciousness: 124-158. Activity and personality: 159-189).

2. Nemov R. S. Psychology: Textbook. for students higher ped. textbook establishments: In 3 books. – 4th ed. – M.: Humanite. ed. Vlados, 2001. – Book. 1: General Basics psychology. -688 pp.

Plan

Introduction

1. Creative path of A.N. Leontyev

2. Teachings of A.N. Leontyev

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Alexey Nikolaevich Leontyev (1903-1979) - Russian psychologist; Doctor of Psychological Sciences, professor, active member of the Academy of Sciences of the RSFSR (1950), Academy of Sciences of the USSR (1968), Honorary Member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1937), Honorary Doctor of the University of Paris (1968). Developed a general psychological theory of activity. Main scientific works: “Development of Memory” (1931), “Restoration of Movement” together with A.V. Zaporozhets (1945), “Essay on the development of the psyche” (1947), “Needs and motives of activity” (1956), “Problems of the development of the psyche” (! 959, 1965), “On the historical approach to the study of the human psyche” (1959), “ Needs, motives and emotions" (1971), "Activity. Consciousness. Personality" (1975).

1. Creative path of A.N. Leontyev

Alexey Nikolaevich Leontiev made activity the subject and method of psychological research. He called the categories of activity of consciousness and personality as “the most important for building a consistent system of psychology as a specific science about the generation, functioning and structure of the mental reflection of reality, which mediates the lives of individuals.” The general psychological theory of activity developed by Leontiev is the most important achievement of Soviet psychological science, and Leontiev himself - a major theorist, one of the founders of Soviet psychology. Based on theoretical and experimental research, he showed the explanatory power of activity for understanding central psychological problems: the essence and development of the psyche of consciousness, the functioning of various forms of mental reflection of the individual. In developing the problem of activity, Leontiev proceeded from the cultural-historical concept of the psyche of L.S. Vygotsky. He believed that the Marxist-Leninist methodology allows one to penetrate into the actual nature of the psyche and human consciousness, and in the theory of activity he saw the concretization of the Marxist-Leninist methodology in the field of psychology.

The origins of his research go back to the early 30s, when Leontiev headed a group of psychologists in Kharkov. Its members included A.V. Zaporozhets, L.I. Bozhovich, P.Ya. Galperin, P.I. Zinchenko, G.D. Lukov, V.I. Asnin. For them, the central problem became the problem of practical activity and consciousness, which Leontiev considered “a necessary line of movement for psychological research.” The structure of children's activity, its means, purpose, motive and changes in the process of child development were studied.

At the end of the 30s. A.N. Leontyev addresses the problems of mental development: he explores the genesis of sensitivity, the development of the animal psyche. The result of this work was his doctoral dissertation “Development of the Psyche” (1946). Here the concept of staged development of the psyche in the process of evolution of the animal world was developed, based on changes in the nature of the connections of animals with environmental conditions in this process. Each new stage was considered as a transition to new conditions of existence and a step in increasing the complexity of the physical organization of animals. The stages in the development of the psyche identified by Leontiev - the elementary sensory psyche, the perceptual and the stages of intelligence - were further developed and specified in subsequent studies.

During the Great Patriotic War A.N. Leontyev, being the scientific director of an evacuation hospital in the Urals, led the work to restore lost gnostic sensitivity and movements after injuries through the special organization of meaningful objective activities of the wounded. Although this cycle of research pursued practical purposes, at the same time he led to a systematic study theoretical problem about the decisive role of activity and action in mental development.

In the articles of 1944-1947 devoted to the development of the psyche in ontogenesis, the problem of activity receives a special treatment. The concept of leading activity was formulated, which served as the basis for studying the periodization of a child’s mental development (A.B. Elkonin), and play was studied as a leading activity in preschool age. A distinction was made between activity (and motive) and action (and goal), operations or methods of performing an action, and the dynamics of their relationships in the process of the child’s real life activity were described; the mechanism of shifting the motive to the goal was revealed as a mechanism of the process of birth of new activities; a distinction was introduced between “only understood motives” and motives that actually operate.” The transformation of an action into an operation was described. Using the example of educational activity, the psychological characteristics of consciousness were revealed, in particular, the irreducibility of consciousness to knowledge of meaning to meaning was shown.

These studies formed the basis of the psychological teachings of A.N. Leontyev about activity, its structure, its dynamics, its various forms and types, the final version of which is given in the work “Activity. Consciousness. Personality." According to this concept, the activity of the subject is the meaningful process in which the real connections of the subject with the objective world are realized and which mediates the connections between the influencing object and the subject. The activity is included in the system of social conditions. The main characteristic of activity is its objectivity - the activity is determined by the object, is subordinated, is likened to it: the objective world is “drawn into” the activity and is reflected in its image, including in the emotional-need sphere. The image is generated by objective activity. Thus, the psyche is considered as processes of subjective reflection of the objective world generated by material practical activity. The form of existence of an image in the individual consciousness is the meaning of language. Sensory tissue is also found in consciousness, i.e. sensory images and personal meanings that give consciousness a biased character. The study of all these components of consciousness is reflected in a number of publications.

The activity has a complex structure. there are differences between activity and its corresponding motive, action and its corresponding goal, operations and corresponding methods of carrying out the action, physiological mechanisms, implementers of activity. There are transitions and transformations between activity components. Analysis of the units forming activity led to the conclusion about the unity of the structure of external and internal activity in the form of which the mental exists. The transitions from external activity to internal activity (interiorization) and from internal activity to external activity (exteriorization) are shown. This is how the mystification of the psyche and consciousness was overcome.

Activity presupposes a subject of activity, a person. In the context of activity theory, the formations “individual” and “personality” are distinguished. Personality is the product of all human relations to the world, realized by the totality of all various activities. The main parameters of personality are the breadth of a person’s connections with the world, the degree of their hierarchy and their general structure. The approach to the study of personality from the position of activity theory is successfully developing in Soviet psychology.

2. Teachings of A.N. Leontyev

The main theoretical principles of the teachings of A.N. Leontieva:

· psychology is a specific science about the generation, functioning and structure of the mental reflection of reality, which mediates the lives of individuals;

· an objective criterion of the psyche is the ability of living organisms to respond to abiotic (or biologically neutral) influences;

Abiotic influences perform a signaling function in relation to biologically significant stimuli:

· irritability- is the ability of living organisms to respond to biologically significant influences, and sensitivity- this is the ability of organisms to reflect influences that are biologically neutral, but objectively related to biological properties;

· in the evolutionary development of the psyche, three stages are distinguished: 1) the stage of the elementary sensory psyche, 2) the stage of the perceptual psyche, 3) the stage of intelligence;

· the development of the animal psyche is a process of activity development;

The characteristics of animal activity are:

a) all animal activity is determined by biological models;

b) all animal activity is limited to visual specific situations;

c) the basis of animal behavior in all spheres of life, including language and communication, is formed by hereditary species programs. Learning from them is limited to the acquisition of individual experience, thanks to which species programs adapt to the specific conditions of the individual’s existence;

d) animals lack consolidation, accumulation and transmission of experience in material form, i.e. in the form of material culture;

· the activity of the subject is the meaningful process in which the real connections of the subject with the objective world are realized and which mediates the connections between the object and the subject influencing it;

· human activity is included in the system of social relations and conditions;

· the main characteristic of activity is its objectivity; activity is determined by the object, is subordinated to it, is likened to it;

· activity - this is the process of interaction of a living being with the surrounding world, allowing it to satisfy its vital needs;

· consciousness cannot be considered as closed in itself: it must be introduced into the activity of the subject;

behavior and activity cannot be considered in isolation from human consciousness ( the principle of unity of consciousness and behavior, consciousness and activity);

· activity is an active, purposeful process ( principle of activity activity);

· human actions are objective; they realize social goals ( the principle of the objectivity of human activity and the principle of its social conditionality).

A.N. Leontiev on the structure of activity

· human activity has a complex hierarchical structure and includes the following levels: I - level of special activities (or special types of activities); II - level of action; III - level of operations; IV - level of psychophysiological functions;

· human activity is inextricably linked with his needs and motives. Need - this is a state of a person, expressing his dependence on material and spiritual objects and conditions of existence that are outside the individual. In psychology, a person’s need is considered as the experience of need for what is necessary for the continuation of the life of his body and the development of his personality. Motive - this is a form of manifestation of a need, an incentive for a certain activity, the object for the sake of which this activity is carried out. Motive according to A.N. Leontiev - this is an objectified need;

· activity as a whole, it is a unit of human life that actively responds to a specific motive;

· one or another motive prompts a person to stage tasks, to identify the goal, which, when presented in certain conditions, requires the execution of an action aimed at creating or obtaining an object that meets the requirements of the motive and satisfies the need. Target - this is the conceivable result of activity represented by him;

· action as an integral part of the activity corresponds to a perceived goal. Any activity is carried out in the form of actions or a chain of actions;

· activity and action are not strictly related to each other. The same activity can be implemented by different actions, and the same action can be included in different types of activity;

· an action, having a specific goal, is carried out in different ways depending on the conditions in which this action is performed. Methods of implementation. actions are called operations. Operations - these are transformed, automated actions that, as a rule, are not realized. For example: when a child learns to write letters, this writing of a letter is for him an action directed by the conscious goal of writing the letter correctly. But, having mastered this action, the child uses writing letters as a way to write words and, therefore, writing letters turns from an action into an operation;

· operations are of two types: the first arise from action through their automation, the second arise through adaptation, adaptation to environmental conditions, through direct imitation;

· a goal given under certain conditions is called in activity theory task ;

· the relationship between the structural and motivational components of activity is presented in Fig. 1.

A.N. Leontiev on the transformation of activities

· an activity can lose its motive and turn into an action, and an action, when its goal changes, can turn into an operation. In this case we talk about consolidation of units of activity . For example, when learning to drive a car, initially each operation (for example, changing gears) is formed as an action subordinate to a conscious goal. Subsequently, this action (shifting gears) is included in another action that has a complex operational composition, for example, in the action of changing the driving mode. Now shifting gears becomes one of the ways of its implementation - the operation that implements it; it ceases to be carried out as a special purposeful process: its goal is not highlighted. For the driver’s consciousness, shifting gears under normal conditions does not seem to exist at all;

· the results of the actions that make up the activity, under some conditions, turn out to be more significant than the motive of the activity in which they are included. Then action becomes activity. In this case we are talking about splitting up units of activity into smaller units. Thus, a child may complete homework on time initially only in order to go for a walk. But with systematic learning and receiving positive marks for his work, which increase his student “prestige,” his interest in the subjects he is studying awakens, and he now begins to prepare lessons in order to better understand the content of the material. The action of preparing lessons acquired its motive and became an activity. This general psychological mechanism for the development of the action of A.N. Leontyev named “shift of motive to goal” (or turning a goal into a motive). The essence of this mechanism is that a goal, previously driven to its implementation by some motive, acquires independent force over time, i.e. itself becomes a motive. The fragmentation of units of activity can also manifest itself in the transformation of operations into actions. For example, during a conversation a person cannot find the right word, i.e. what was an operation has become an action subordinated to a conscious goal.

A.N. Leontiev on the essence and structure of consciousness

· consciousness in its immediacy is the picture of the world that is revealed to the subject, in which he himself, his actions and states are included;

· initially consciousness exists only in the form of a mental image that reveals the world around it to the subject, while activity remains practical, external. At a later stage, activity also becomes the subject of consciousness: the actions of other people, and through them, the subject’s own actions, are realized. Now they communicate using gestures or vocal speech. This is a prerequisite for the generation of internal actions and operations that take place in the mind, on the “plane of consciousness.” Consciousness is an image becomes also consciousness - activity. It is in this fullness that consciousness begins to seem emancipated from external, sensory-practical activity, moreover, in control of it;

· another major change undergoes consciousness in the course of historical development. It lies in the destruction of the initial unity of the consciousness of the work collective (for example, a community) and the consciousness of the individuals forming it. At the same time, the psychological characteristics of individual consciousness can only be understood through their connections with the social relations in which the individual is involved;

· structure of consciousness includes: the sensory fabric of consciousness, meanings and personal meanings;

· sensual fabric consciousness forms a sensory composition of specific images of reality, actually perceived or emerging in memory, related to the future or only imaginary. These images differ in their modality, sensory tone, degree of clarity, greater or lesser stability, etc.;

· the special function of sensory images of consciousness is that they give reality to the conscious picture of the world that is revealed to the subject. It is thanks to the sensory content of consciousness that the world appears to the subject as existing not in consciousness, but outside his consciousness - as an objective “field” and the object of his activity;

· sensory images represent a universal form of mental reflection generated by the objective activity of the subject. However, in humans, sensory images acquire a new quality, namely, their meaning . Meanings are the most important “formatives” of human consciousness.

· values refract the world in the human mind. Although language is the carrier of meanings, language is not the demiurge of meanings. Behind linguistic meanings are hidden socially developed methods (operations) of action, in the process of which people change and cognize objective reality;

· the meanings represent the ideal form of existence of the objective world, its properties, connections and relationships revealed by cumulative social practice, transformed and folded into matter. Therefore, the values ​​themselves, i.e. in abstraction from their functioning in the individual consciousness, they are just as “non-psychological” as the socially cognized reality that lies behind them;

· one should distinguish between the perceived objective meaning and its meaning for the subject. In the latter case they talk about personal meaning. In other words personal meaning - this is the meaning of a particular phenomenon for a specific person. Personal meaning creates partiality of consciousness. Unlike meanings, personal meanings do not have their own “psychological existence”;

a person’s consciousness, like his activity itself, is not a certain sum of its constituent parts, i.e. it is not additive. This is not a plane, not even a container filled with images and processes. This is not a connection between its individual “units”, but internal movement its constituents, included in the general movement of activities that carry out the real life of the individual in society. Human activity constitutes the substance of his consciousness.

A.N. Leontyev on the relationship between consciousness and motives

· motives can be recognized, but, as a rule, they are not realized, i.e. all motives can be divided into two large classes - conscious and unconscious;

· awareness of motives is a special activity, special internal work;

· unconscious motives “manifest” in consciousness in special forms - in the form of emotions and in the form of personal meanings. Emotions are a reflection of the relationship between the result of an activity and its motive. If, from the point of view of motive, the activity is successful, positive emotions arise, if unsuccessful, negative emotions arise. Personal meaning is the experience of increased subjective significance of an object, action or event that finds itself in the field of action of the leading motive;

· human motives form a hierarchical system. Usually the hierarchical relationships of motives are not fully realized. They manifest themselves in situations of conflict of motives.

A.N. Leontyev on the relationship between internal and external activities

· internal activity has fundamentally the same structure as external activity, and differs from it only in the form of its occurrence ( the principle of unity of internal in external activities);

· internal activity arose from external practical activity through the process of internalization (or transfer of corresponding actions to the mental plane, i.e. their assimilation);

· internal actions are performed not with real objects, but with their images, and instead of a real product, a mental result is obtained;

· to successfully reproduce any action “in the mind,” you must master it in material terms and first obtain a real result. During internalization, external activity, although it does not change its fundamental structure, is greatly transformed and reduced, which allows it to be carried out much faster.

A.N. Leontyev about personality

· personality ≠ individual; this is a special quality that is acquired by an individual in society, in the totality of relationships, social in nature, in which the individual is involved;

· personality is a systemic and therefore supersensible quality , although the bearer of this quality is a completely sensual, bodily individual with all his innate and acquired properties. They, these properties, constitute only the conditions (prerequisites) for the formation and functioning of the personality, as well as the external conditions and circumstances of life that befall the individual;

· from this point of view, the problem of personality forms a new psychological dimension:

a) other than the dimension in which research is conducted on certain mental processes, individual properties and states of a person;

b) this is a study of his place, position in the system of public relations, communications that open to him;

c) this is a study of what, for what and how a person uses what he received from birth and acquired by him;

· the anthropological properties of an individual act not as defining personality or included in its structure, but as genetically given conditions for the formation of personality and, at the same time, as something that determines not its psychological traits, but only forms and methods their manifestations;

· one is not born as a person, one becomes a person ;

· personality is a relatively late product of the socio-historical and ontogenetic development of man;

· personality is a special human formation;

· the real basis of a person’s personality is the totality of his social relations to the world, those relationships that are realized by his activities, more precisely, the totality of his diverse activities

· the formation of personality is the formation of a coherent system of personal meanings:

There are three main personality parameters:

1) the breadth of a person’s connections with the world;

2) the degree of their hierarchization and

3) their general structure;

· personality is born twice :

a) the first birth refers to preschool age and is marked by the establishment of the first hierarchical relationships between motives, the first subordination of immediate impulses to social norms;

b) the rebirth of personality begins in adolescence and is expressed in the emergence of the desire and ability to realize one’s motives, as well as to carry out active work to subordinate and resubordinate them. The rebirth of personality presupposes the presence of self-awareness.

Conclusion

Throughout Leontiev’s work runs the struggle against naturalistic concepts in human psychology, the idea of ​​the historical development of human consciousness. It was the subject of special analysis in articles of 1959-1960. Here, in the context of the problem of biological and social, the concepts of three types of experience are formulated - individual, species and social.

Based on the activity theory of A.N. Leontiev at Moscow University at the Faculty of Psychology, of which he was the founder and first dean, as well as in other institutions, research is carried out in general and in other branches of psychological science - social, children's, pedagogical, engineering, pathopsychology, zoopsychology, etc. In the early 60s 's A.N. Leontiev published a number of works on engineering psychology and ergonomics and thereby contributed to the emergence and formation of these branches of psychological science and the USSR. He owns research on educational psychology.

Thus, A.N. Leontiev made a huge contribution to the development of domestic and world psychology, and his ideas are being developed by scientists to this day.

Bibliography

1. Zhdan A.N. History of psychology: from Antiquity to the present day. - M., 2001.

2. Leontyev A.N. Activity. Consciousness. Personality. - M., 1975.

3. Leontyev A.N. Essays on the development of the psyche. - M., 1947.

4. Leontiev A.N., Zaporozhets A.V. Psychophysiological restoration of hand functions after injury. - M., 1945.

5. Leontyev A.N. To the theory of child mental development: Psychological foundations preschool game // A.N. Leontyev. Favorites psychological works. T. 1. - M., 1983.

6. Leontyev A.N. Psychological issues of consciousness of teaching. - M., 1956.

7. Leontyev A.N. The concept of reflection and its significance for psychology // Questions of Philosophy. - 1966. - No. 12.

8. Petrovsky A.V. Psychology in Russia: XX centuries. - M., 2000.

9. Farbi K.E. Fundamentals of zoopsychology. - M., 1976.