Lecture 4. Activity theory

The principle of the unity of consciousness and activity

Analyzing the process of the emergence of three main psychological trends: behaviorism, psychoanalysis and Gestalt psychology, we can say that all these three systems are transformed forms of W. Wundt’s psychological theory. Despite their differences, they were deeply connected because they all came from an old understanding of consciousness. The behaviorists' demand to abandon consciousness was very radical, but behaviorism turned out to be the other side of the same introspective psychology. Inactive consciousness was replaced in behaviorism by responses that were in no way regulated by consciousness. Instead of discarding consciousness, it was necessary to understand it postally, to explain the conditions of its generation and functioning. To analyze consciousness, it was necessary to go beyond its limits, that is, to study it in human behavior. Thus, it was necessary to open consciousness not only inside oneself (as was the case with V. Wundt), but also outside, into the reality that surrounds a person.

To overcome the contradiction between consciousness, devoid of external manifestation, and behavior, which is in no way regulated by consciousness, domestic psychologist S.L. Rubinstein (1989-1960) introduces the category of “activity”. In the 30s, S.L. Rubinstein formulated the principle of the unity of consciousness and activity.

This principle presupposes a new interpretation of the concepts of “consciousness” and “behavior”. Behavior and consciousness are not two aspects facing in different directions; they form an organic unity. Consciousness is the internal plan of activity - after all, before doing ANYTHING, you need to have a goal, a plan, that is, imagine in your mind (in an ideal plan) what you will do, plan your activity. Consciousness is not closed in itself (like W. Wundt), but manifests itself in activity. It is formed in activity; the subject not only transforms the object, transforming the object, he, at the same time, transforms himself. The more connections a person has with the reality around him, the more we can say about his inner world, about his consciousness. Thus, one can study the human psyche, his consciousness through activity.

The principle of objectivity

Later, in the 70s, the category of activity was developed by A.N. Leontyev. He owns the most developed general psychological theory of activity. Fundamental to the theory is the principle of objectivity. Imagine an object. Let's take, for example, an ordinary spoon. Think about what opposite sides can be identified in the subject? A spoon is made of metal, it has a certain shape, size, etc., that is, I am now talking about its physical properties. However, a spoon is a cutlery, a person uses it when eating, and it is unlikely that he will use it as a tool for hammering nails. This means that the object contains ways of handling it, which dictate the forms of human behavior. Thus, the object is presented to us both in terms of its physical properties and social significance. By the way, a small child gradually learns these social meanings. For example, at first a child often uses the same spoon for completely different purposes: he can, for example, knock with it, that is, use it as a source of sound.

So, human activity appears as activity with objects and with the help of objects. The subject of activity can be not only a material thing, but also an idea, a problem, behind which there are also objects. In the process of activity, a person objectifies his mental abilities, which crystallize in objects of labor. Using objects, we appropriate the abilities contained in them and develop our own mental abilities. Thus, in the category of “activity” we can distinguish another pair of opposites, the unity of which also reveals the essence of activity: objectification and appropriation.

Structure of activity (according to A.N. Leontiev)

According to A.N. Leontiev, activity has a hierarchical structure, that is, it consists of several levels. The first level is a special activity. The main thing that distinguishes one activity from another is their objects. The subject of an activity is its motive (A.N. Leontyev). The subject of activity can be either material and given in perception, or ideal.

We are surrounded by a huge variety of objects, and often there are many ideas in our minds. However, not a single object is written on it that it is the motive for our activities. Why do some of them become the subject (motive) of our activities, while others do not? An object (idea) becomes a motive when it meets our need. Need is the state of a person's need for something.

In the life of every need there are two stages: the first stage when a person has not yet determined which object can satisfy this need. Surely, each of you has experienced a state of uncertainty, a search, when you want something, but you cannot say what for sure. A person, as it were, makes a search of objects, ideas that would meet his needs. It is during this search activity that meetings usually occur! needs with her subject. Here is how Yu.B. Gippenreiter perfectly illustrates this point with a fragment from “Eugene Onegin”:

“You barely walked in, I instantly recognized

Everything was stupefied, on fire

And in my thoughts I said: here he is!”

The process of meeting a need with an object is called the objectification of the need. In this act, a motive is born - an objectified need. Let's diagram this as follows:

need -> subject -> motive

The need in this case becomes different, specific, a need specifically for a given object. Behavior takes on its own direction. So, activity is stimulated by motive (remember the proverb “If there is a hunt, any work will work out”).

The second level in the structure of activity is represented by actions. Action is a process aimed at realizing a goal. A goal is an image of what is desired, that is, the result that should be achieved during the execution of an action. Setting a goal means an active principle in the subject: a person does not simply react to the action of a stimulus (as was the case with behaviorists), but actively organizes his behavior.

Action includes as a necessary component the act of creation in the form of setting and maintaining a goal. But an action is at the same time an act of behavior, since a person makes external movements in the process of activity. However, unlike behaviorism, these movements are considered by A.N. Leontyev in inextricable unity with consciousness. Thus, action is the unity of opposite sides: action - command (external) - consciousness (internal)

It should be noted that actions are dictated by the logic of the social and objective environment, that is, in his actions a person must take into account the properties of the objects on which he influences. For example, when you turn on the TV or use a computer, you relate your actions to the design of these devices. Action can be considered from the perspective of what must be comprehended and how it must be achieved, that is, in what way. The way an action is performed is called an operation. Let's imagine this schematically: action - what? (goal) - how (operation)

Any action is carried out by certain operations. Imagine that you need to perform the action of multiplying two two-digit numbers, for example 22 and 13. How will you do this? Someone will multiply them in their heads, someone will multiply them in writing (in a column), and if you have a calculator at hand, then you will use it. Thus, these will be three different operations of the same action. Operations characterize the technical side of performing an action, and when they talk about dexterity, dexterity (“golden hands”), this refers specifically to the level of operations.

What determines the nature of the operations used, that is, why in the above-mentioned case the action of multiplication can be performed by three different operations? The operation depends on the conditions under which it is performed. Conditions mean both external circumstances (in our example, the presence or absence of a calculator) and possibilities, internal means of the acting subject (some people can count perfectly in their minds, while others need to do it on paper).

The main property of operations is that they are little or not consciously realized. In this way, operations are fundamentally different from actions that require conscious control over their implementation. For example, when you record a lecture, you perform an action: you try to understand the meaning of the teacher’s statements and record it on paper. During this activity, you perform operations. Thus, writing any word consists of certain operations: for example, to write the letter “a” you need to make an oval and a hook. Of course, you don’t think about it, you do it automatically. I would like to note that the boundary between an action and an operation, a very mobile action can turn into an operation, an operation into an action. For example, for a first-grader, writing the letter “a” is an action, since his goal is to master the way of writing this letter. However, gradually he thinks less and less about what elements it consists of and how to write them, and the action turns into an operation. Let's imagine further that you decide to make a beautiful inscription on a postcard - it is obvious that all your attention will be directed, first of all, to the writing process itself. In this case, the operation becomes an action.

So, if an action corresponds to a goal, then an operation corresponds to the conditions for performing the action.

We move on to the lowest level in the structure of activity. This is the level of psychophysiological functions.

The object that carries out the activity has a highly developed nervous system, a complex musculoskeletal system, and developed sensory organs. Psychophysiological functions mean the physiological support of mental processes. These include a number of abilities of our body, such as the ability to sense, to form and record traces of past influences, motor (motor) ability, etc.

Let us summarize the macrostructure of activity according to A.N. Leontiev in the following table:

Table No. 2. Structure of activity

How do we know where we are dealing with action and where with activity? A.N. Leontyev called activities such processes that are characterized by the fact that the motive (inspiration for activity) coincides with what the given process as a whole is aimed at. To illustrate this point, he gives the following example. A student, preparing for an exam, reads a book. What is this - action or activity? A psychological analysis of this process is necessary. Let's say a friend came to our student and said that this book was not needed for the exam. What will our friend do? There are two possible options here: either the student will willingly put the book down, or he will continue reading. In the first case, the motive does not coincide with what the reading of the book is aimed at. Objectively, reading a book is aimed at learning its contents and gaining new knowledge. However, the motive is not the content of the book, but passing the exam. Therefore, here we can talk about action, and not about activity. In the second case, the motive coincides with what the reading is aimed at: the motive here is to learn the contents of the book in itself, without regard to passing the exam. Activity and action can transform into each other. In the example in the quote, at first the book is just to pass an exam, but then the reading captivates you so much that you start reading for the sake of the book’s content itself - a new activity appears, the action turns into activity. This process is called a shift of motive to goal - or transformation of goal into motive

Related information.

Theory of activity of Alexey Leontyev

The concept of activity, according to A. N. Leontiev, is interpreted as follows. It is based on the concept of action, that is, a process whose object and motive do not coincide with each other. Both of them, the motive and the object, must be reflected in the psyche of the subject: otherwise the action is deprived of its meaning for him. Next, the concept of operation is introduced. The psychological fusion of individual private actions into a single action represents the transformation of the latter into operations. Moreover, the content that previously occupied the place of the conscious goals of these particular actions occupies the structural place of the conditions for its implementation in the structure of a complex action. Another type of operation is born from the simple adaptation of an action to the conditions of its implementation. Finally, the concept of activity is introduced as an action that has received an independent motive. In this, and only in this case, we are dealing with a conscious motive. Awareness of the motive is not initial, but requires some special act of reflection of the relationship of the motive of a given specific activity to the motive of a broader activity. The most important feature of Leontiev’s concept is that in it the structure of activity and the structure of consciousness are interchangeable concepts; they are connected with each other within the framework of one integral system. The fact that usually the analysis of the structure of activity precedes the analysis of the structure of consciousness is associated with the genetic approach. But genetically, consciousness cannot be understood otherwise than as a product of activity. Functionally, their connections are mutual activity and “controlled by consciousness,” and at the same time, in a certain sense, it itself controls it. It is therefore necessary to particularly dwell on the problem of the connection between the structure of activity and the structure of consciousness.

Already in his first works, A. N. Leontyev emphasizes that the emergence of a differentiated internal structure in activity is a consequence of the emergence of collective labor activity. It is possible then, and only then, when a person subjectively reflects the real or possible connection of his actions with the achievement of a common final result. This allows a person to perform individual actions that would seem to be ineffective if taken in isolation, outside of collective activity. “Thus, along with the birth of actions,” writes A. N. Leontiev, of this main “unit” of human activity, the basic, social in nature “unit” of the human psyche arises—the rational meaning for a person of what his activity is directed at.” At the same time, there also appears the possibility of designation, presentation of the objective world itself, realized with the help of language, as a result of which consciousness arises in its own sense, as a reflection of reality through linguistic meanings. The genesis, development and functioning of consciousness are derived from one or another level of development of the forms and functions of activity: “Together with the change in the structure of a person’s activity, the internal structure of his consciousness changes.” How? Mental reflection is always “biased”. But it contains something that is correlated with objective connections, relationships, interactions, which is included in the public consciousness and enshrined in language, and something that depends on the relationship of this particular subject to the reflected object. Hence the distinction between meaning and personal meaning, so often analyzed by various authors. The development of production requires a system of subordinate actions. In terms of consciousness, this means a transition from a conscious goal to a conscious condition of action, the emergence of levels of awareness. But the division of labor and production specialization lead to a “shift of motive to goal” and the transformation of action into activity. New motives and needs are created, and further qualitative differentiation of awareness occurs. Another step is the transition to the actual internal mental processes, the emergence of the theoretical phase of practical activity. Internal actions appear, and subsequently internal activities and internal operations are formed according to the general law of shifting motives. But activity that is ideal in its form is not fundamentally separated from external, practical activity. Both of them “are equally meaningful and meaning-forming processes. It is in their commonality that the integrity of a person’s life is expressed.” Action is internally connected with personal meaning. As for conscious operations, they are correlated with meanings that crystallize for the individual’s consciousness the social experience he assimilates.

Just like activity, consciousness is not a simple sum of elements; it has its own structure, its own internal integrity, its own logic. And if human life is a system of successive and coexisting or conflicting activities, then consciousness is what unites them, what ensures their reproduction, variation, development, their hierarchy.

In the book "Activity. Consciousness. Personality" these ideas received new development. First of all, the indivisible, molar nature of activity is emphasized, since it is “a system that has its own structure, its own internal transitions and transformations, its own development,” “included in the system of relations of society.” In society, a person is not simply subject to external conditions to which he adapts his activities, the social conditions themselves carry the motives and goals of his activities, thus society creates the activities of the individuals who form it. Primary activity is controlled by the object itself (the objective world), and secondarily by its image, as a subjective product of activity that carries subject content. The conscious image is understood here as an ideal measure, embodied in activity; it, human consciousness, essentially participates in the movement of activity. Along with the “consciousness-image,” the concept of “consciousness of activity” is introduced, and in general, consciousness is defined as the internal movement of its constituents, included in the general movement of activity. Attention is focused on the fact that actions are not special “separates” within the activity; human activity does not exist except in the form of an action or chain of actions. One and the same process appears as activity in its relation to the motive, as an action or chain of actions in its subordination to the goal. Thus, action is not a component or a unit of activity: it is precisely its “formative”, its moment. Next, the relationship between motives and goals is analyzed.

The concept of “goal motivation” is introduced, i.e. a conscious motive, acting as a “general goal” (the goal of an activity, not an action), and a “goal zone”, the identification of which only depends on the motive; the choice of a specific goal, the process of goal formation, is associated with “testing goals through action.”

At the same time, the concept of two aspects of action is introduced. "Besides its intentional aspect (what is to be achieved) action also has its operational aspect (how, in what way this can be achieved."

Hence, a slightly different definition of operation is the quality of an action that forms an action. The question is raised about the division of activity into units that are more fractional than an operation. Finally, the concept of personality is introduced as an internal aspect of activity. It is and only as a result of the hierarchization of individual activities of the individual that carry out his social nature of relations with the world that he acquires a special quality and becomes a person. A new step in the analysis is that if, when considering activity, the concept of action acted as the central one, then in the analysis of personality, the main thing becomes the concept of hierarchical connections of activities, the hierarchy of their motives. These connections, however, are in no way determined by the personality as some kind of extra-activity or supra-activity formation; the development and expansion of the range of activities itself leads to tying them into “knots,” and hence to the formation of a new level of consciousness of the individual. But among the problems that have not been fully developed is, in particular, the problem of motive; this concept itself remained internally inconsistent in Leontyev, although it was not contradictory.

After the publication of “Activity. Consciousness. Personality,” A. N. Leontyev wrote two new works on activity. The first is a report at the All-Union Psychological Congress on June 27, 1977, published posthumously. Here the accents are placed most clearly and, by the way, the directions for further development are just as clearly outlined. We are talking about the problem of activity and attitude, the problem of supra-situational activity, the problem of goal setting, the problem of skills. The main idea of ​​the entire publication is that “activity as a unit of real human existence, although realized by the brain, is a process that necessarily includes extracerebral links, which are decisive. The second work is one of the most recent (beginning of 1978), and it was not completed. This is an article “On further psychological analysis of activity” (manuscript). Here Leontyev returns to the problem of activity and communication, sharply contrasting his position with attempts to “bifurcate” human life into parallel processes of activity and processes of communication: “.. Not only do the relationships of individuals to the objective world not exist outside of communication, but their communication itself is generated by the development of these relationships." Two more areas of Leontiev’s work in the last years of his life were especially closely related to personality problems. Alexei Nikolaevich’s appeal to the problems of the psychology of art is not accidental: It is difficult to find an area of ​​human activity in which a person as an integral personality would realize himself more fully and comprehensively. Therefore, A. N. Leontiev’s interest in art did not fade away until very recently. Unfortunately, he left almost no publications on the psychology of art, although he often and willingly spoke on these topics.

Defining the subject of psychological science as the generation and functioning in activity of a mental reflection of reality, A. N. Leontyev could not help but turn to the detailed development of both and the psychological mechanisms of sensory reflection, and the essence and structure of activity. Already in the articles of the 50s, A. N. Leontyev, relying, in particular, on the research conducted under his leadership on the formation of pitch hearing, and then the activity of the visual system, formulated the well-known hypothesis of “assimilation”. Later, his interests shifted to the study of the objectivity of human perception, both experimentally (experiments with pseudoscopic vision, etc.) and theoretically. The main provisions of A. N. Leontiev in the last period of his activity regarding sensory reflection are as follows. Firstly, “the mental reflection generated by activity is a necessary moment of the activity itself, a guiding, orienting and regulating moment. This, as it were, two-way process of mutual transitions, however, constitutes a single movement from which mental reflection is inseparable, for it does not exist otherwise than in this movement." Secondly, such reflection is possible only as part of some whole “image of the world”.

This is something more than a “direct sensory picture”: the image of the world “appears in meaning”, and the entire totality of human practice “in its idealized forms enters into the picture of the world”. Two points are extremely important here: a) the predetermination of this designated, meaningful objective world to each specific act of perception, the need to “fit” this act into a ready-made picture of the world; b) this picture of the world acts as a unity of individual and social experience. Associated with all these ideas is the proposition about the amodality of objective perception. As is known, during his lifetime A. N. Leontiev did not write a general work on perception, although his publications in this direction were quite numerous. In the early 70s, he conceived a book called “The Psychology of the Image,” later Alexey Nikolaevich found another title, “The Image of the World,” but it remained unwritten.

Leontiev's theory of activity, as well as the work of Vygotsky, attracts considerable attention from representatives of cultural psychology and the sociocultural approach. Perhaps they will play a role in ethnopsychology.

Theories of action and theories of activity -

Based on materials by Konstantin Efimov, website of the Faculty of Psychology of Moscow State University.

source unknown

Activity theory developed in the second half of the 20th century. in the works of Alexey Nikolaevich Leontyev.

Personality is an internal component, a unique unity, integrates mental processes and controls them, it is an indivisible psychological new formation, formed in a person’s life connections as a result of the development of his activities. Personality arises in society and is needed to live in it. Personality is the subject of public relations.

There is a difference between external and internal activities, which both have a socio-historical nature and a common structure. External activity is genetically primary, from which comes the internal mental activity of consciousness. The defining feature of activity is objectivity. That is, activity is aimed at an object and takes place taking into account its properties. An object is an external object of material reality, which is reflected in the human mind in the form of an image.

The interconnected elements of activity are need, motive, goal, conditions. Need determines activity, motive determines actions, conditions determine operations. Action does not allow the motive to be realized, so a person must imagine how a separate action affects the satisfaction of the motive.

A.N. Leontiev (1972) explores the emergence of personality both in the history of mankind and in the development of the child. Social relations are realized through a set of diverse activities. The hierarchical relationship of activities, in its essence, is a relationship of motives, and most fully characterizes the personality. A.N. Leontiev defines the criteria for the emergence of personality in the development of a child. The scientist notes that personality appears twice in ontogenesis. For the first time - when a child develops polymotivation and subordination of motives (in a preschooler). The second is when his conscious personality (adolescent) arises.

The formation of personality is identified with the formation of personal meanings. The central problem of personality psychology is self-awareness, awareness of oneself in the system of social relations

The origin, development and functioning of consciousness are determined by a certain level of development of human activity. A change in the structure of human activity leads to a change in the structure of his consciousness. With the emergence of actions as the main “unit” of activity, a basic, social in nature, “unit” of the psyche arises - the meaning for a person of what his activity is aimed at. Each individual action in the activity structure corresponds to levels of awareness.

Gradually, with the development of activity in the history of mankind, division of labor and specialization arises. This means that individual actions are isolated and become independent activities, while at the same time maintaining a connection with the activity that gave rise to it. For example, previously an ax was produced by one person from start to finish, but subsequently professions and corresponding activities emerged for the manufacture of each individual part of the ax. Now for a person who produces a certain part, it becomes the final goal, but previously it was only one of the stages on the way to making an ax, which was the final goal. What was previously a motive has become a goal - a “shift of motive to goal” has taken place, in the words of A.N. Leontyev.

Philosophical and psychological concept (S. L. Rubinstein)

In human life, Sergei Leonidovich Rubinstein identifies three different psychological formations - cognition, activity, attitude, which provide different directions of a person’s connections with reality.

The psyche and consciousness are tools for the individual. The connection between consciousness and activity is mediated by personality. Thanks to consciousness, a person overcomes his own boundaries. Consciousness is a way of personal regulation of connections created in activity, including the regulation of mental processes, regulation of relationships, and regulation of the activity and entire life of the subject. A conscious personality organizes its connections with reality in a qualitatively new way. She herself builds the conditions of her life and her connections with the world.

A personality should be considered not only as a subject of activity, but also as a subject of a person’s life path and a certain psychological foundation of a person, under which he changes environmental conditions, independently organizes his life, and bears responsibility for it. In this process, her individuality is formed.

The personality structure, Rubinstein proposed, includes three components of activity - needs, abilities, orientation.

Personality is what a person wants (direction), what she can do (ability), and what she is (character). These blocks form a dynamic integrity that turns out to be in life.

Each person realizes himself with varying degrees of success. Some people reach maturity almost in childhood, while others remain children in old age. Some people depend more on external circumstances, while others create their own inner world and depend little on the environment. And someone consciously influences the events of their life, realizing themselves in this way.

A person who is unable to influence the conditions of his life is unable to realize himself.

The position that everything that happens in the mental sphere of a person is rooted in his activity was also developed by Alexei Nikolaevich Leontiev (1903-1979). At first he followed the line outlined by Vygotsky. But then, highly appreciating Basov’s ideas about the “morphology” (structure) of activity, he proposed a scheme for its organization and transformation at various levels: in the evolution of the animal world, in the history of human society, as well as in the individual development of man - “Problems of psychic development” ( 1959).

Leontyev emphasized that activity is a special integrity. It includes various components: motives, goals, actions. They cannot be considered separately; they form a system. He explained the difference between activity and action using the following example, taken from the history of human activity in primitive society. A participant in a primitive collective hunt, as a beater, scares away the game in order to direct it to other hunters who are hiding in ambush. The motive for his activity is the need for food. He satisfies his need by driving away prey, from which it follows that his activity is determined by the motive, while the action is determined by the goal that he achieves (scaring the game) for the sake of realizing this motive.

The psychological analysis of the child’s learning situation is similar. A schoolboy reads a book to pass an exam. The motive of his activity may be passing an exam, getting a mark, and the action may be mastering the contents of the book. However, a situation is possible when the content itself becomes a motive and captivates the student so much that he concentrates on it regardless of the exam and grade. Then there will be a “shift of the motive (passing the exam) to the goal (solving the educational problem).” This will create a new motive. The previous action will turn into an independent activity. From these simple examples it is clear how important it is, when studying the same objectively observable actions, to reveal their internal psychological background.

Turning to activity as a form of existence inherent to a person allows us to include in a broad social context the study of basic psychological categories (image, action, motive, attitude, personality), which form an internally connected system.

Conclusion

The subject of consideration in the theory of activity is the holistic activity of the subject as an organic system in all its forms and types. The initial method for studying the psyche is the analysis of transformations of mental reflection in activity, studied in its phylogenetic, historical, ontogenetic and functional aspects.

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 a fundamentally common 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.

Action in activity theory is internally connected with personal meaning. Psychological fusion into a single action. private actions represent the transformation of the latter into operations, and the content, which previously occupied the place of the conscious goals of private actions, occupies the structural place in the structure of the action of the conditions for its implementation. 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. In the theory of activity, the concept of “motive-goal” was introduced, i.e., a conscious motive acting as a “general goal” and a “goal zone”, the identification of which depends on the motive or a specific goal, and the process of goal formation is always associated with testing goals through action .

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

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. In activity theory, it is proposed to use the following grounds when creating a personality typology: the richness of the individual’s connections with the world, the degree of hierarchization of motives, and their general structure.

Based on the theory of activity, activity-oriented theories of social psychology of personality, child and developmental psychology, pathopsychology of personality, etc. have been developed and continue to be developed.

Bibliography

1. Basov M. Ya. Selected psychological works. M., 2005.

2. Leontiev A. N. Selected psychological works. T. 1, 2. M., 2003.

3. Maklakov P. General psychology. : Textbook. allowance. M., 2009.

4. Rubinstein S. L. Fundamentals of general psychology. In 2 volumes. M., 2009.

5. Slobodchikov V.I., Isaev E.I. Human psychology. M., 2005.

6. Yaroshevsky M.G. History of psychology. M., 2006.

Of the students and followers of L. S. Vygotsky, one of the most remarkable and influential figures in Russian psychology was Alexey Nikolaevich Leontyev(1903-1979), whose name is associated with the development of the “theory of 100

activities 1 ". In general, A. N. Leontiev developed the most important ideas of his teacher, paying, however, the main attention to what turned out to be insufficiently developed by L. S. Vygotsky - the problem of activity.

If L. S. Vygotsky saw psychology as a science about the development of higher mental functions in the process of human mastery of culture, then A. N. Leontiev oriented psychology towards the study of the generation, functioning and structure of the mental reflection of reality in the process of activity.

The general principle that guided A. N. Leontiev in his approach can be formulated as follows: internal, mental activity arises in the process of interiorization of external, practical activity and has fundamentally the same structure. This formulation outlines the direction of searching for answers to the most important theoretical questions of psychology: how the psyche arises, what is its structure and how to study it. The most important consequences from this position: by studying practical activity, we also comprehend the laws of mental activity; By managing the organization of practical activity, we manage the organization of internal, mental activity.

The internal structures formed as a result of internalization, integrating and transforming, are, in turn, the basis for the generation of external actions, statements, etc.; this process of transition from “internal to external” is designated as “exteriorization”; the principle of “interiorization-exteriorization” is one of the most important in the theory of activity.

One of these questions is: what are the criteria for mental health? On what basis can one judge whether an organism has a psyche or not? As you may have partially understood from the previous review, different answers are possible, and all will be hypothetical. Okay, idea panpsychis-

In a different vein, the problem of activity was developed by G. L. Rubinstein, the founder of another scientific school not related to L. S. Vygotsky; we will talk about it further.

ma assumes universal animation, including what we call “inanimate nature” (“pan” means “everything”), and is rarely found in psychology proper; biopsychism endows all living things with psyche; neuropsychism- only those living beings that have a nervous system; anthropopsychism gives the psyche only to man. Is it legitimate, however, to make belonging to one or another class of objects the criterion of the psyche? After all, within each class, objects are very heterogeneous, not to mention the difficulties in discussing the membership of a number of “intermediate” objects in one class or another; finally, the very attribution of mentality to one or another class of objects is most often very speculative and is only indicated, but not proven. And is it legitimate to judge the presence of a psyche by the anatomical and physiological characteristics of the body?

A. N. Leontiev tried (like a number of other authors) to find such a criterion not in the very fact of “belonging to a category” and not in the presence of an “organ”, but in the characteristics of the organism’s behavior (showing, by the way, that the complexity of behavior does not directly correlate with complexity of the body structure). Based on the concept of the psyche as a special form of reflection(the philosophical basis for this approach is contained in the works of the classics of Marxism), A. N. Leontyev sees a “watershed” between the prepsychic and mental levels of reflection in the transition from irritability to sensitivity. He considers irritability as a property of the body to respond to biologically significant (biotic) influences directly related to life activity. Sensitivity is defined as the ability to respond to influences that in themselves do not carry biological significance (abiotic), but signal the organism about the associated biotic influence, which contributes to more effective adaptation. It is the presence of sensitivity in the ideas of A. N. Leontyev that is the criterion of the psychic.

In fact, to explain the response to biotic influences there is no need to resort to ideas about the psyche: these influences are directly important 102

for the survival of the organism, and reflection is carried out at the organic level. But at what level, in what form does the reflection of influences occur? on their own neutral for the body?

After all, you must admit, the smell is inedible, the sound of a predator’s growl is not dangerous!

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the abiotic impact is reflected in the form ideal image, which means the presence of the psyche as an “internal” reality. At the level of sensitivity it becomes possible to talk about a special form of activity, directed in an ideal way. Sensitivity in its simplest form is associated with sensations, that is, the subjective reflection of individual properties of objects and phenomena of the objective world; the first stage of the evolutionary development of the psyche is designated by A. N. Leontyev as "elementary sensory psyche". Next stage - "perceptual psyche" on which perception arises as a reflection of integral objects (“perception” means “perception”); the third is named stage of intelligence, where the reflection of connections between objects occurs.

According to the idea of ​​A. N. Leontiev, new stages of mental reflection arise as a result of the complication of activities connecting the body with the environment. Belonging to a higher evolutionary level (according to the accepted taxonomy) in itself is not decisive: organisms of a lower biological level can demonstrate more complex forms of behavior than some higher ones.

In connection with the development of A. N. Leontiev’s activity, he also discusses the problem of the emergence of consciousness. A distinctive feature of consciousness is the possibility of reflecting the world regardless of the biological meaning of this reflection, that is, the possibility of objective reflection. The emergence of consciousness is due, according to A. N. Leontyev, to the emergence of a special form of activity - collective labor.

Collective work presupposes a division of functions - participants perform various operations, which in themselves, in some cases, may seem meaningless from the point of view of directly satisfying the needs of the person performing them.

For example, during a collective hunt, the beater drives the animal away from him. But the natural act of a person who wants to get food should be exactly the opposite!

This means that there are special elements of activity that are subordinated not to direct motivation, but to a result that is expedient in the context of collective activity and plays an intermediate role in this activity. (In terms of A N. Leontieva, here the goal is separated from the motive, as a result of which the action is distinguished as a special unit of activity; we will turn to these concepts below, when considering the structure of activity.) To carry out an action, a person must understand its result in the general context, that is, comprehend it.

Thus, one of the factors in the emergence of consciousness is collective work. Another is a person’s involvement in verbal communication, which allows one to become involved in social experience through mastering the system of linguistic meanings. Consciousness, in fact, is formed by meanings and meanings (we will also turn to the concept of “meaning” later), as well as the so-called sensory fabric of consciousness, that is, its figurative content.

So, from the point of view of A. N. Leontiev, activity acts as the starting point for the formation of the psyche at various levels. (Note that Leontiev in recent works preferred to refer the concept of “activity” to a person.)

Let us now consider its structure.

An activity represents a form of activity. Activity is stimulated by need, that is, a state of need for certain conditions of normal functioning of an individual (not necessarily biological). The need is not experienced by the subject as such; it is “presented” to him as an experience of discomfort, insecurity. satisfaction, tension and manifests itself in search activity. During the search, a need meets its object, that is, a fixation on an object that can satisfy it (this is not necessarily a material object; it could be, for example, a lecture that satisfies a cognitive need). From this moment of the “meeting”, activity becomes directed (the need for something specific, and not “in general”), demand-104

ity is objectified and becomes a motive, which may or may not be realized. It is now, believes A. N. Leontyev, that it is possible to talk about activity. Activity correlates with motive, motive is what the activity is performed for; activity -■ it is a set of actions that are caused by a motive.

Action is the main structural unit of activity. It is defined as a process aimed at achieving a goal; the goal represents a conscious image of the desired result. Now remember what we noted when discussing the genesis of consciousness: the goal is separated from the motive, that is, the image of the result of the action is separated from what the activity is carried out for. The relationship of the purpose of an action to the motive represents meaning.

Action is carried out on the basis of certain methods correlated with a specific situation, that is, conditions; These methods (unconscious or little realized) are called operations and represent a lower level in the structure of activity. We defined activity as a set of actions caused by a motive; action can be considered as a set of operations subordinate to a goal.

Finally, the lowest level is the psychophysiological functions that “provide” mental processes.

This is, in general terms, a structure that is fundamentally the same for external and internal activities, which are naturally different in form (actions are performed with real objects or with images of objects).

We briefly examined the structure of activity according to A. N. Leontiev and his ideas about the role of activity in the phylogenetic development of the psyche.

Activity theory, however, also describes the patterns of individual mental development. Thus, A. N. Leontyev proposed the concept of “leading activity”, which allowed Daniil Borisovich Elkonin(1904-1984) in combination with a number of ideas of L. S. Vygotsky to construct one of the main periodizations of age development in Russian psychology. Leading activity is understood as that with which, at a given stage of development, the emergence of the most important new formations is associated and in line with which other types of activity develop; a change in leading activity means a transition to a new stage (for example, the transition from play activity to educational activity during the transition from senior preschool to junior school age).

The main mechanism in this case, according to A. N. Leontiev, is shift of motive to goal- transformation of what acted as one of the goals into an independent motive. So, for example, the assimilation of knowledge in primary school age can initially act as one of the goals in activities prompted by the motive “to obtain the teacher’s approval”, and then becomes an independent motive stimulating educational activity.

In line with the theory of activity, the problem of personality is also discussed - primarily in connection with the formation of the motivational sphere of a person. According to A. N Leontiev, a personality is “born” twice.

The first “birth” of the personality occurs in preschool age, when a hierarchy of motives is established, the first correlation of immediate impulses with social criteria arises, that is, the opportunity arises to act contrary to immediate impulses in accordance with social motives.

The second “birth” occurs in adolescence and is associated with awareness of the motives of one’s behavior and the possibility of self-education.

A. N. Leontiev’s concept thus extends to a wide range of theoretical and practical problems; its influence on Russian psychology is extremely great, and therefore we examined it, albeit in general terms, but in somewhat more detail than a number of other concepts. Let us also note its importance for teaching practice: in line with the theory of activity, a theory of the gradual formation of mental actions was developed Peter Yakovlevich Galperin(1902-198 8): according to the principle of interiorization, mental - internal - action is formed as a transformation of the original practical action, its gradual transition from existence in material form to existence in the form of external speech, then “external speech to oneself” (internal pronunciation) and , finally, in the form of a collapsed, internal action.

The scientific school, at the origins of which was L. S. Vygotsky, is one of the leading in psychology. In addition to those mentioned by A. N. Leontiev, D. B. Elkonin, P. Ya. Galperin, To it belongs to remarkable scientists who worked in various areas of psychology - Alexander Romanovich

Luria(1902-1977), who studied the problems of cerebral localization of higher mental functions and founded the science of “neuropsychology”; Alexander Vladimirovich Zaporozhets(1905-1981), who studied the role of practical actions in the genesis of cognitive processes and the role of emotions in the semantic regulation of activity; Lidiya Ilyinichna Bozhovich(1908-1981), whose main works are devoted to the problems of child personality development; Peter Ivanovich Zinchenko(1903-1969), who studied memory from the perspective of the activity approach, and many others. The works of this school are directly related to the studies of a number of major modern scientists - V.V. Davydov, V.P. Zinchenko, V.S. Mukhina, A.V. Petrovsky and others.