Subbotsky, E.V.

Background. L.S. Vygotsky’s cultural-historical approach toward children’s psychological development was first developed around one hundred years ago. It now requires re-evaluation in light of new experimental studies that have shown complexity and diversity of the innate psychological abilities of new-borns and infants, as well as other theoretical approaches towards understanding the role of culture and learning in cognitive development. Such a re-evaluation aims to draw our attention to those aspects of human psychology that L.S. Vygotsky, due to the limited empirical knowledge available to him and his early death, was unable or did not have time to illuminate.

Objectives. The aim is to consider L.S. Vygotsky’s concept of natural psychological functions in a new perspective, as a forerunner of the ‘heart’ of human psychology — the living consciousness.

Methods. The research method is a comparative and logical analysis of concepts, illustrated by the results of the author’s and his colleagues’ long-term experimental research.

Results. A distinction between living consciousness, which includes subjective experiences (for example, perceptions, emotions, and creative thinking) and functions according to the laws of magic, and objectified consciousness, into which living consciousness is transformed for consumption by society and culture (for example, scientific concepts, logical thinking, and human artifacts) and which conforms to the laws of nature and formal logic, is proposed. It has been hypothesized that both living consciousness and higher mental functions are genetically related to natural mental functions. Differences between the structure, functions and methods of studying living and objectified consciousness are considered.

Conclusions. Natural mental functions are the psychological basis for two relatively independent but interconnected branches of mental development: living consciousness and higher mental functions. Living consciousness does not obey the laws of formal logic and is the primary source of creative ideas and truly selfless morality.

Background. Any method of research or influence has limits of applicability. Determining the limits of applicability of the cultural-historical approach will reveal new phenomena in the study of living subjectivity that cannot be investigated within the framework of the cultural-historical approach to the psyche.
Objective of the study was to determine the limits of applicability of the cultural-historical method and to describe new mental phenomena, the study of which requires fundamentally different methodological approaches.
Methods. The material is the author’s and his colleagues’ long-term research in the field of functioning and development of consciousness. The method involved logical analysis when comparing the cultural-historical approach to psyche and the approach based on intuitive-reflective self-observation of living subjectivity.
Results. The analysis showed that cultural-historical method and socio-cultural method derived from it, aim at managing subjectivity with the help of objectified structures of the psyche — sign-symbolic formations such as speech, logical thinking, scientific concepts, social norms or culturally developed perceptual patterns. At the same time, the “fossils of living subjectivity” — symbols and signs, scientific concepts, schemes, algorithms, norms, theories, and others — are “psychological tools” that mediate the operation of living subjectivity. All directions in Russian psychology within this approach originated from this approach — the assertion of the leading role of speech in the development of the higher mental functions (HMF) by L.S. Vygotsky, the concept of the orienting basis of action (IBA) by P.Ya. Galperin, school programs for teaching concepts by D.B. Elkonin and V.V. Davydov, neuropsychological methods by A.R. Luria, studies of the development of voluntary movements by A.V. Zaporozhets and others. All these approaches worked; however, the living subjectivity remained a mystery. On the contrary, the method applicable to the study of living subjectivity can be called the method of “releasing impact” — an experiment based on self-observation and self-report in conditions where the subject can freely structure reality.
Conclusion. The cultural-historical method is effective in teaching ready-made knowledge at school, in developing skills, restoring lost cognitive functions in patients, or shaping cognitive and socio-moral forms of behavior based on external control. However, this method is not applicable to living subjectivity — experiences, the motivational-semantic sphere based on the magical laws of participation, emotional sphere and creative thinking, since this method considers a person as an object. The principles of studying living subjectivity are proposed, practical approaches to influence living subjectivity, as well as the contradictions and dangers associated with them are analyzed.