Activity theory in Soviet psychology. Activity and consciousness. Psychological theory of activity

In the 1930s. psychological science was given new tasks. The first was the development of the methodology of psychology as the foundation for the construction of a new type of science, which is not descriptive but explanatory knowledge. The second is the creation of a system of psychology as a science that would include all the critically rethought achievements of world psychology and, at the same time, rely on Russian empirical research. The third, directly following from the second, was the task of revealing and overcoming the crisis psychological science.

The activity approach replaced reactology and became an expression of the desire to build a psychology on the basis of Marxism. Its essence was expressed in the advancement of a fundamental postulate about the unity of consciousness and activity. This means that any content of consciousness and any mental process must be considered as a result of cognitive action - perceptual, thinking. Actions are based on a motive (need) and a specific goal. Activity was viewed from the Marxist point of view, which affirmed labor as the main form of man's relationship with the environment.

The category of activity, with its basic principle of the unity of consciousness and activity, on the one hand, was opposed to behaviorism, which denied consciousness, and on the other hand, to Freudianism, which asserted the influence of unconscious drives. Most of all, it corresponded to operationalism in the form of neobkheviorism, which began to develop precisely at this time (in the 1930s).

The main theoreticians of this approach were S. L. Rubinshtein and L. N. Leontiev. The first was inclined towards a philosophical and methodological solution to the problems of activity in psychology, the second considered the development of the psyche as an activity in a theoretical, historical, phylo- and ontogenetic key. DN Uznadze also put forward an original concept of the state of mind ("attitude").

S. L. Rubinstein(1889-1960) is known as the founder of the Marxist theory of activity in Soviet psychology.

Rubinstein got acquainted with the works of K. Marx very early. But he was able to extract its own philosophical content from Marx's theory only by defining his own concept - the concept of philosophical anthropology, the center of which was the idea of not the subject of the knower (like Hegel), but the idea subject of the existing and actively realizing his essence in the world. Rubinstein presented it in a manuscript. In his work, he systematically developed the principle of the subject and his creative initiative, later transformed by him as a methodological principle of psychology and called activity approach.

In the early 1930s. the scientist published his concept of consciousness and activity in the article "Problems of Psychology in the Works of K. Marx", and on next year his first monograph "Foundations of Psychology" (1935) was published. In these works, Rubinstein presented his interpretation of the system of ideas contained in the early manuscripts of Karl Marx.

As one of the program works of Rubinstein, one can single out "Foundations of General Psychology". In it, the scientist approached the examination of the psyche, consciousness and personality from the standpoint development principle. He also made an attempt to reveal in unity all the existing aspects of development: from the historical and ontogenetic to the life and biographical. The very activity of the subject was also considered in the process of its formation and improvement (at different stages of the complication of the life process, the activity takes new forms and begins to be built in a new way). In a concretized form, the principle of the unity of consciousness and activity(the disclosure of this unity is carried out in the aspect of the functioning and development of consciousness in activity; the manifestation of consciousness in activity is simultaneously the development of consciousness through activity, as well as its formation).

Rubinstein gave a methodological definition of the nature of the psyche as a unity of reflection and attitude, cognition and experience, epistemological and ontological. In the same work, he presented a detailed description of consciousness as the highest level of mental organization. Consciousness was considered by the scientist as a regulator of activity, carrying out three interrelated functions - the regulation of the mental processes themselves, the relationship of the subject to the world, as well as the regulation of activity as an integral manifestation of the subject. Consciousness, thus, acted as the highest ability of the acting personality.

In his book Being and Consciousness (1957) Rubinstein turned to the development of principle of determinism as a key method for philosophy, psychology and itself social life... One of the most important methodological features of the new formula of determinism was the transformation of the falsely stated philosophical problem: either the psychic is material and then it is explained only physiologically, or it is ideal, then its essence is comprehensible only outside the material world.

The most significant peculiarities of activity Rubinstein analyzed in the article "The principle of creative initiative". He referred to them:

1) subjectivity (activity is always carried out by the subject, more precisely by the subjects);
2) content, reality, objectivity (activity is not symbolic and fictitious);
3) inextricable connection with creativity;
4) the connection between activity and independence. The scientist put forward the following ideas regarding the nature of man, reflecting the essence of the activity approach.
1. Every human action proceeds from motives and is directed towards a goal.
2. Activity and consciousness form a unity. The very fact of awareness of one's activity changes the nature of its course and, thus, ceases to be a simple set of responses to external stimuli.
3. Awareness of an action depends on the attitude that develops in the course of the activity itself. Thus, a conscious action is an action that is accompanied by consciousness.
4. Human behavior is not reduced to a simple set of reactions, it includes a system of conscious actions, which differs from the reaction in a different attitude to the object.
5. Action is a conscious act of activity that is directed towards an object. An action becomes an action as its relation to the subject rises into the plane of consciousness and turns into a conscious relation.
6. The unity of consciousness and behavior is revealed in their very content. Their unity is based on the unity of consciousness and being, the objective content of which is manifested through consciousness.
7. Through the activity of the subject, his psyche becomes cognizable for others. For cognition of the psyche, one must proceed from the principle of the unity of internal and external manifestations.
8. Activity is understood as the interaction of the subject with the outside world; it is a process through which a person's attitude to the surrounding world is realized.
9. Species human activity are determined by the nature of the main product that is created in the activity and is its purpose: practical (labor) and theoretical (cognitive) activity.

Rubinstein's scientific research and works are distinguished by the consistency of the presentation of the history and methodology of psychology, combining them into an integral theoretical and historical system.

The unity of consciousness and activity, the unity of activity - external and internal, the origin of internal, mental activity from external, objective - all of them affirm the derived nature of the psyche, consciousness, its secondary nature in relation to the material world - this conviction of the scientist was supported by representatives of Soviet psychology.

The most important achievement of Soviet psychological science was developed by one of the founders of Soviet psychology, A. N. Leontiev(1903 1979) general psychological theory of activity.

On the basis of theoretical and experimental research, the scientist showed the explanatory power) "of activity for understanding the central psychological problems: the essence and development of the psyche and consciousness, the functioning of various forms of mental reflection of the individual. When developing the problem of activity, Leontiev relied on the provisions of the cultural-historical concept of the psyche of L.S. Vygotsky.

Leontiev began his career developing, together with a group of scientists, the problem of activity in the child's psyche and studying such aspects of its development and changes as the child's setting goals and motives for his activity. Later he turned to the study of the problem of the genesis of the psyche, which he described in his dissertation "Development of the psyche" (1946).

Leont'ev's work "Activity. Consciousness. Personality", in which he put forward the following scientific ideas, became a fundamental work that reveals the essence of the activity approach.

1. Activity should be understood as a process that carries out the life of the subject, the purpose of which is to satisfy the subject's needs of the subject.
2. Object needs are defined as internal states of the organism.
3. The development of activity necessarily leads to the emergence of a mental reflection of reality in the course of evolution (activity gives rise to mental life).
4. Activity is a process that transforms the reflected into reflection (ie, external to internal).
5. At the level of human behavior, mental reflection is also expressed in the products of activity. Thus, in addition to the objective reflection of reality, activity transforms the image into an objective-objective form, which can be material or ideal (immaterial). Language is a form of reflection of an image in the individual consciousness.
6. There are several stages in the development of the psyche in ontogenesis:
- elementary sensory psyche;
- perceptual psyche (i.e. the formation of an image);
- the stage of intelligence (i.e., ensuring the orientation and adaptation of the organism in the environment).
7. At every age, a person has a leading activity.
8. The activity is carried out by the subject, accordingly, it involves the disclosure of the concept of personality as a product of all human relations to the world, and these relations are carried out through the totality of all human activities.
9. The entire totality of human experience can be divided into three types: individual, species and social, which are present in every person.

Leontief's ideas had a strong influence on the development of most industries Russian psychology- social, children's, pedagogical, engineering, pathopsychology, zoopsychology, ergonomics. Moreover, they laid the foundation for the development of these branches of psychology in the USSR. Like S. L. Rubinstein, Leontiev is one of the founders of Soviet psychology.

But nevertheless, the weak link in Leont'ev's theory should be recognized as his concept of "objective activity", activity that has objects of reality, and ignores the relations (communication) of people or considers them indirectly, not on purpose.

The world-renowned setup theory was developed D. N. Uznadze(1886-1950).

Studying foreign psychology and its various concepts, Uznadze was able to identify a feature common to most areas. He called to her "the postulate of immediacy". According to this postulate, "objective reality directly and immediately affects the conscious psyche and in this direct connection determines its activity."

Uznadze saw the origins of this "dogmatic premise" in the false orientation of psychology towards natural science, which is based on the recognition of the fact of a direct connection between physical phenomena. Uznadze saw an analogy with this principle in "closed causation principle" W. Wundt (the mental arises from the mental), who criticized it as unscientific and unproductive, both in explanations of Gestalt psychology and in behaviorism.

Uznadze revealed the profound consequences of reliance on the postulate of immediacy in psychology. This is idealism and mechanism, expressed in ignoring the subject of activity and the personality as a specific whole, as a result of which behavior is presented as "interaction with the reality of individual mental and motor processes, primarily determined by direct interaction ... of motor or mental processes and their stimuli or irritants, and therefore to understand it, apart from taking into account these two points, nothing else is required. "

Uznadze's analysis of foreign psychology turned out to be consonant with her research reflected in the works of L. S. Vygotsky and S. L. Rubinstein. The scientist's views were shared by Soviet psychology as a whole. Thus, A. N. Leont'ev repeatedly used the term "the postulate of immediacy," introduced by Uznadze, and, like him, saw the task of psychology in overcoming this postulate. Criticism of the postulate of immediacy is important part of to work on creating methodological foundations own psychological concept of D. N. Uznadze. The task of overcoming this postulate follows from it. The answer to this problem was set theory.

The theory of attitude, according to Uznadze's own assessment, was an attempt to explain the activity of a living organism as a whole, its relationship with reality by introducing a special internal formation, designated by the concept of "attitude." An attitude arises when two conditions are simultaneously present: a need that is actually acting at a given moment, and an objective situation of satisfying this need. Thus, internal and external factors are taken into account in its formation.

Installation is a primary, holistic, undifferentiated state that precedes conscious mental activity and underlies behavior. Installation is "a condition that can be qualified as extraconscious a mental process that under these conditions has a decisive influence on the content and course of the conscious psyche. "" Individual acts of behavior, all mental activity are phenomena of secondary origin. "

Experimental material for the study of the installation phenomenon was various illusions sense organs (vision, hearing, weight, volume, etc.). A method was developed experimental research installations, studied the types of installations, the process of their formation, described their properties. From the standpoint of the attitude, characteristics of mental processes were given, an original classification of forms of human behavior and activity was made, hierarchical levels of mental activity were revealed - an individual, a subject, a personality.

In contrast to the attitude in foreign psychology, in which this phenomenon acted as a private psychological education, Uznadze gave the concept of attitude the status general psychological category, and the theory of this phenomenon turned into a general psychological theory of attitude and was extended to the study of pathopsychological phenomena, found application in pedagogy, on its basis, a system of psychotherapy methods was developed - set therapy (using the concept of attitude to treat patients).

The attitude was described as a mediating formation between the influence of the environment and mental processes, which explains human behavior, one hundred emotional and volitional processes, i.e. acts as a determinant of any activity of the organism. So, thinking (as well as creative imagination, labor, etc.) arises in a situation of difficulty in acts of behavior caused by a certain attitude, when the complication of the situation necessitates making this difficulty a special object of study. "This specific act, which turns an object or phenomenon included in the chain of human activity into a special independent object of his observation, could be called an act objectification ".

Allocation of objectification led Uznadze to the conclusion about the existence of two levels of mental life - the level of attitude characteristic of every living being (and only in particular for a person), and the level of objectification, which is "a special property of only man as a thinking being, building the foundations of cultural life as a creator of cultural values ".

Activity theory

Created in Soviet psychology. A significant contribution to it was made by L. S. Vygotsky, S. L. Rubinstein, Leontiev, A. R. Luria, A. V. Zaporozhets, P. Ya. Halperin and many others. Its basis is the idea of \ u200b \ u200bthe structure of activity ( cm.), although they do not exhaust the theory completely.

One of the essential differences between the theory of activity and previous concepts is the recognition of the indissoluble unity of consciousness and behavior. This unity is already contained in the main unit of analysis - action.

The main starting points, principles of the theory of activity are as follows:

1 ) consciousness cannot be considered as closed in itself, it must be brought into the activity of the subject ("opening" the circle of consciousness);

2 ) behavior cannot be considered in isolation from consciousness: when considering behavior, consciousness should not only be preserved, but also defined in its fundamental function(the principle of the unity of consciousness and communication);

4 ) actions are substantive, they implement social goals(the principle of objectivity of activity and the principle of social conditionality of activity).

The development of the theory of activity began with an analysis of external activity, but then turned to internal activity. With regard to these very important forms of activity, two main theses are put forward. ;

1. Internal activity has fundamentally the same structure as external, and differs only in the form of flow. This means that internal activity is also prompted by motives, accompanied by emotions (often even more acute), and has its own operational composition. The only difference is that actions are carried out not with real objects, but with their images, and the product is the result-image.

2. Internal activity originated from external activity through its internalization. So for the successful reproduction of some action in the mind, it is imperative to master it in reality and get a real result. At the same time, during interiorization, external activity, without changing the fundamental structure, is strongly transformed; This is especially true of its operational part: individual actions or operations are reduced, some of them drop out altogether, and the whole process goes much faster.

Through the concept of activity, the internal theory of activity has largely approached the description of the stream of consciousness by its own means - however, this concept does not cover the entire content of the stream of consciousness. For full coverage, it is necessary to take after the theory of activity one more step - in the direction of such traditional objects of psychology as individual mental processes or functions - perception, attention, memory, etc. by her means.

So, to describe perception, it is necessary to introduce the concept of perceptual action, and first it is necessary to find out whether there are perceptual goals. They, undoubtedly, exist and appear, for example, in the task of distinguishing two similar stimuli - tastes, smells, sound tones, etc. The concepts of the structure of activity are applicable to the analysis of all other mental processes. Theory allows you to take a fresh look at these classical objects of psychology - they are interpreted as special forms of activity.

Dictionary of the Practical Psychologist. - M .: AST, Harvest... S. Yu. Golovin. 1998.

Activity theory Etymology.

Comes from the Greek. theoria - research.

Authors.

Kraiker, 1980; Herzog, 1984.

Category.

West German psychological direction

Specificity.

It relies on criticism of behaviorism for refusing to accept responsibility for their behavior and the ability to choose between different forms response. In contrast, it is postulated that human behavior is arbitrary, goal-oriented and conscious. It is believed that a person is an active being who behaves purposefully and deliberately, who chooses from alternatives, chooses his own goals and can decide on something, the actions taking place on this basis are solid and rational. Due to the fact that the basis of this approach is operationalism, the criticism lies in the refusal of the ability to operationally describe the existential and transcendental components of human behavior, as well as the components of the unconscious.

Psychological Dictionary... THEM. Kondakov. 2000.

Activity theory

Another name for the theory of aging. According to this theory, active activity and participation in the affairs of society leads to greater satisfaction with life and psychological health in old age. As a desirable measure, it is envisaged to transfer many activities and interests from the mature age to more later periods of life. Since some of the main roles (and (for example, parents or employees) in society) in society are lost as they age, it is proposed to replace them with new roles.The theory is often criticized for a simplified approach, in the sense that it continues vigorous activity and engaging in social activities alone cannot provide life satisfaction and good health.

Psychology. AND I. Reference dictionary / Per. from English K. S. Tkachenko. - M .: FAIR-PRESS... Mike Cordwell. 2000.

See what "activity theory" is in other dictionaries:

Activity theory- or the activity approach, the school of Soviet psychology, founded by A. N. Leontiev and S. L. Rubinstein on the cultural-historical approach of L. S. Vygotsky. History The time of the creation of the theory of activity 1920 1930 Rubinstein and Leontiev ... ... Wikipedia

THEORY OF ACTIVITY- THEORY OF ACTIVITY. The leading direction of psychological research in Russian science, which goes back to the works of the school of L. S. Vygotsky, A. N. Leontiev, A. R. Luria and studies the character and nature of activity, its structural organization, subject ...

Activity Theory- (from the Greek. theoria research) West German psychological direction, authors Kraiker, 1980; Herzog, 1984. Based on criticism of behaviorism for refusing to accept responsibility for a person ... Psychological Dictionary

Activity theory- a system of scientific description of activities, created by domestic psychologists and educators. It is based on ideas about the structure of activity, the recognition of its indissoluble unity with consciousness. The initial provisions and principles of the domestic ... ... Fundamentals of Spiritual Culture (Teacher's Encyclopedic Dictionary)

A.N. Leontiev implementation of the activity approach to the analysis of psychological phenomena. Activity is considered here as the subject of analysis, since the psyche itself cannot be separated from the moments that generate and mediate it ... ... Psychological Dictionary

Etymology. Comes from the Greek. theoria research. Author. A.N. Leontiev. Category. Implementation of an activity-based approach to the analysis of psychological phenomena. Specificity. Activity is considered here as the subject of analysis. Insofar as… …

Activity Theory Developed- S.L. Rubinstein implementation of the activity approach to the analysis of psychological phenomena. As a subject of analysis, the psyche is considered here through the disclosure of its essential objective connections and mediations, in particular through ... ... Psychological Dictionary

Etymology. Comes from the Greek. theoria research. Author. S.L. Rubinstein. Category. Implementation of an activity-based approach to the analysis of psychological phenomena. Specificity. The subject of analysis here is the psyche through disclosure ... ... Great psychological encyclopedia

PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY OF ACTIVITY- the system of ideas about the origin and development of the psyche, the essence of mental processes as a special form of activity of the product of the development of material life, external material activity, which ... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy

CONTEXT LEARNING THEORY- THEORY OF CONTEXT LEARNING. The theory of learning, developed by A.A. Verbitsky (1991, 1999) and assuming such an organization of the educational process in higher education, in which in various forms learning activities student is held ... ... New Dictionary of Methodological Terms and Concepts (Theory and Practice of Language Teaching)

Walter Buckley and the concept of morphogenesis

The genealogy of modern activity theory can be traced back to 1967 and the work of Walter Buckley "Sociology andtheory of modern systems ". Drawing on the traditions of structural functionalism and general theory systems, Walter Buckley wanted to revise them, using the views of representatives of other theoretical directions: the theory of exchange, symbolic interaction, game theory, models of collective behavior. The same system model served as the basis for such integration. According to Buckley, it is suitable "for the synthesis of interaction models into a consistent conceptual scheme - the basic theory of the sociocultural process" (62; 81). The structural-functional model of a self-regulating, homeostatic (or, as he calls it, "morphostatic") system, permeated with negative compensatory feedbacks, Buckley supplemented the model of a "morphogenetic system" with positive, reinforcing feedbacks, in which structures are constantly being built and transformed. “The model presupposes a working system of interacting components with an internal source of tension - a system fully involved in continuous activity with different external and internal environments, so that the latter tends to be selectively 'mapped' of the structure” (62; 128). Buckley defined the central, strategic concept as follows: "Morphogenesis refers to those processes that tend to develop or change a given form, structure or state of the system" (62; 58). The emphasis on the active, constructive side of social functioning was a significant breakthrough in theoretical views, even if Buckley was still trapped in the separate premises of the system that he himself deliberately denied, namely the organismic

and mechanistic models. Its morphogenetic system "arises", "becomes embedded", "generates, develops and restructures itself." In all this, one can see some automatism, as well as the tough quality of the system itself. Activity is not yet completely released from the systemic cell.

Amitai Etzioni and an active society

A year later, Amitai Etzioni put forward the original theory of "active society" (118), later called the "theory of self-direction" (59). The key here is the concept of "mobilization" or "social activation".

“The theory of social orientation differs from other theories of modern social science in that it considers the mobilization forces of collectives and societies as the main source of their own transformations and transformations of their relations with other social units. When a social unit is mobilized, it tends to change its own structure and boundaries, as well as the structure of the higher unit of which it is a member. " (118; 393).

Human society is a “macroscopic and continuous social movement” involved in “intense and constant self-transformation” (118; viii). The final motor is detected in a "self-starting converter" (118; 121) and "creative responsiveness", that is, the ability to creatively respond to influences (118; 504); the place where this ability is concentrated are collectives, groups and social organizations; mechanism is identified with collective action, and mainly within the framework of the political process.

The theory of social orientation asks the question: how does a given actor direct the process and change the structure or boundaries of the social whole? .. The theory of social orientation also raises the question of how this structure was modeled, how it was maintained, how it can be changed, where are the sources of motive forces, who concentrates knowledge and who is capable of fulfillment (118; 78).

Although Etzioni also derived his ideas from systems theory or cybernetics, he managed to avoid automatism - he found the true subjects of the action of social self-transformation in various types of collectives. The "hunt" for elusive action has become much more specific.

Alain Touraine, Michel Crozier and Erhard Friedberg: the contribution of the French

In the second half of the 70s, the French made their contribution to the theory of action. “A rapid break began with the materialist outlook on society, very typical of the French version of structuralism” (75; 197). Probably the most prominent representative of this trend is Alain Touraine. From the time he developed the image of a "self-produced society" (422; 1977), his main work took on a tangible critical connotation. It was directed against both developmental theory and structuralism, which “subordinate the sense of collective action to the inevitable laws or requirements of historical reality” (425; 81). Consequently, they take the subject out of a sociological perspective, see it as a simple emanation of the system.

“An evolutionary or historical concept appeals to comparative history or even to the philosophy of history. It seeks to show that societies follow each other along the path of progress, rationality and strengthening of the nation state. It does not apply to the study of social figures themselves: it is enough to analyze their actions, which are an expression of either positive tendencies or internal contradictions of the given system ”(425; 91).

"The Return of the Doer" is necessary (424); “We must bring back the idea that people make their own history” (425; 88). This is possible only if we consider society as a continuous, constantly moving product of human efforts: "society is nothing more than an unstable and, most likely, uncoordinated result of social relations and social conflicts" (425; 85).

Society and history are created through collective actions, the main carriers of which, according to Touraine, are social movements (425). They are interpreted as forms of collective mobilization that directly destroy the cultural foundations of society. "The social movement is the decisive agent of history, since historical reality is formed through conflicts, as well as the demands put forward by social movements and giving a specific social form to cultural orientations" (425; 87). Touraine associated the denial of evolutionism and the attribution of the role of the main mobilization forces to social movements with the emergence of a "post-industrial society" in which the "

t to amateur performance ”and the range of possibilities and choices has expanded. Thus, "these societies are the product of their own actions, and not part of the process of historical evolution" (425; 84). The ability of society to mobilize, transform itself, create structures - already noted by previous authors - Touraine identified much more specifically and correlated it with certain historical phases.

Two other French sociologists, Michel Crozier and Erhard Friedberg, have uncovered the interdependence of actors and systems (85). Like Touraine, they began by denying the "laws of history." From their point of view, it is inappropriate to consider the forms of organization of people as completely conditioned by the external context - the social environment.

Social change, they believe, is a continuous structuralization and restructuring of the arena in which people perform certain actions, seeking to find solutions to the problems and problems that arise before them.

Collective activity of this kind is characterized by its inherent creativity, since there is a mechanism of "collective learning", thanks to which individual discoveries and innovations are introduced into social practice and built into the system. As a result, not only the features of the latter change, but also the transformation mechanism itself is transformed. There are no necessary, inevitable or "natural" changes, they are all the product of human ingenuity, creativity and search. Awareness of this fact makes it possible to proclaim "organizational freedom", that is, a real opportunity to resist structural conditions. The authors introduced the concept of "learning society", implying one of the fundamental mechanisms of social self-transformation - collective learning. This is their main contribution to the development of the theory of activity.

Anthony Giddvns and the idea of structuring

The participation of the British in the discussion was expressed primarily in the "theory of structuration" developed by Anthony Giddens * (147; 148; 149). He dissociated himself from all the theories typical of "ortho-

* E. Giddens uses the concept of "structuration", which, in contrast to the well-known term "structuring", means "self-structuring". (Ed.)

doxal consensus ", which presupposes the materialization of social wholes and social determinism of figures (considering them as" structural and cultural idiots "). By combining such criticisms of functionalism and structuralism with inspiration drawn from various branches of “understanding or interpretive sociology,” Giddens went so far as to deny the concept of structure itself. Emphasizing the constantly changing nature of social reality, whose true ontological substrate lies in the actions and interactions of subjects - people, he proposed to transform the static concept of "structure" into a dynamic category "structuration", meaning the description of the collective behavior of people. “Our life takes place in transformation” (147; 3), and its main content is the constant production and reproduction of society. Thus, “to study the structuring of a social system means to study the ways in which this system - within the framework of the application of common rules and resources and in the context of unintended results - is produced and reproduced in interaction” (147; 6). “The structural properties of systems are both a means and a result of practice, in the process of which these systems are formed” (147; 69). This is the "dual, or dual, structure" theorem.

The ultimate engine of "structuring" is people - doers (or "agents"), many individuals in their daily behavior. At the same time, "all social activists know a lot about the conditions and consequences of what they do in their daily life." (149; 281). A scrupulous analysis of "practical" and "discursive" consciousness goes far beyond the boundaries of early "interpretive sociology", but does not lead to one-sided absolutization. Some conditions are considered unknowable, and some consequences are unintended. It follows from this that even if we consider history as a continuous product of activity, as created from "events driven by the individual" (149; 9), this does not at all mean that the product coincides with intentions: "Human history is created by purposeful activity, but it is not a deliberate project, it constantly frustrates attempts to consciously lead it in a certain direction." (149; 27).

Another characteristic feature of human agents is their material (bodily, biological) constitution and, therefore, their inevitable subordination to time and space. "The physicality of a person imposes strict restrictions on his ability to move and perceive" (149; 111). This very simple

the flock statement turns out to be incredibly complex, and sociologists rarely dare to accept it.

Thanks to Giddens, activity is finally recognized as the embodiment of individual human beings. Now no one questions the fact that human society is formed not by some tendency of the system or change-oriented collectives, classes, movements, but the everyday behavior of ordinary people, often far from any reformist intentions. Undoubtedly, in the richness and depth of detailed analysis of individual figures, Giddens goes much further than any other author in unraveling the secrets of activity.

Tom Berne and the Uppsala Group: Theory of Rule Systems *

The other side of the activity-structure equation was derived by Tom R. Burns and Elena Flam in Rule Systems Theory (70). Although the authors claim that they pursue the goal of “building bridges between the levels of structures and actors” (70; 9), they nevertheless focus not on the actors who form, but on the structures that are formed. They regard the latter in normative terms as complex networks of rules. “Human activity, for all its extraordinary diversity and for all its originality, is organized and governed mainly by socially determined rules, as well as by systems of rules” (70; viii). Since the authors work in Uppsala (Sweden), the question involuntarily arises: is this an unconscious echo or a conscious continuation of an important branch of Swedish sociology known as the Uppsala School, namely the normative ontology of the social world developed by Torgni Segerstedt (352) ... “Each type of interaction and cooperation should presuppose some general norms. Only having general norms and common symbols, we can predict ”(352; 12).

The main thrust of this theory is a complex analysis of social rules that make up “deep

* The theory of T. Burns P. Sztompka calls "Rule-systems theory", that is, literally the theory of systems-rules. From the further presentation it is clear that Berne distinguishes between a system of rules and a system of modes of application of these rules as an integrity. According to the meaning, the expression "social rules of systems" is also encountered in the text of this translation. In any given system, there are many systems of rules related to different areas activities (economics, management, etc.). (Ed.)

structures of human history ”(70; ix). They are divided into three types of "modules": rule system, rule mode, and grammar. Rule systems include rules that “depend on the context and have temporal specificity - rules used to structure and regulate social interactions, performing certain activities, specific tasks, or interaction in socially conditioned forms” (70; 13). Regimes of rules are supported by social sanctions, networks of power and control and, therefore, acquire an objective, external character in human perception. They are close to what is usually called instructions (in the normative sense of this general category). At the individual level, systems turn into a "grammar of social actions" used to structure and regulate interactions with each other in certain situations or areas of activity (70; 14).

Such a complex and multidimensional normative network is viewed not as a given, in the traditional Durkheimian sense, but as a product of human activity. “Social systems of rules are human constructions” (70; 30). “People constantly shape and change social systems of rules” (70; 206) in three ways: by creating, interpreting and applying them. All this activity is an area of social conflict and struggle, a specific "policy" of forming rules. Arising in human actions, the rules of systems, in turn, affect them. In full accordance with Giddens, the authors speak of “relationship dualism”. On the one hand, the social rules of systems organize and regulate social interactions such as exchange or political competition, determine who is allowed to participate, which interactions are considered legal, where and how they can be performed, etc. On the other hand, interaction processes serve as the basis for the formation and modification of rule systems, as well as for their interpretation and application (70; 10-11).

So, "people by their actions transform the conditions of these actions" (70; 3). The key to this “dualism” can be found in the historical dimension of human reality: “The systems that people follow today have been developed over a long period of time. Through interaction, social groups and communities support and propagate systems of rules for the future ”(70; 29). Berne and Flam add to activity theory a rich analysis of normative structures, which is supported by detailed analysis of empirical cases, most

characteristic of modern society. These include economic markets, bureaucracy, and technological complexes.

Margaret Archer and the theory of morphogenesis

Another British contributor, Margaret S. Archer, got involved in the controversy about activities in 1982 in a somewhat destructive way, sharply criticizing Giddens's "structuration theory" (19). But soon she moved on to the constructive stage of her work, proposing her own version - the "theory of morphogenesis"; the culmination of this stage was the work ".Culture and activistness "(1988). The main advantage of the morphogenetic perspective lies in the realization that “the unique feature that distinguishes social systems from organic or mechanical systems is their ability to undergo radical restructuring” (21; xxii), which they ultimately owe to humans (19; 59).

The central concept of morphogenesis refers to "the complex interaction of structures and actions that occurs in a given form, structure, or in a given state of the system" (19; xxii). When studying such mutual influences, it is necessary to be guided by the principle of "analytical" rather than "conceptual duality". According to the first, in the course of analysis, actions and structures are separated, since “emergent * properties of sociocultural systems imply discontinuity between the initial interaction and their final product” (19; 61). In contrast, the principle of duality is fraught with the loss of “central conflation” - elision (union) of two elements that lose autonomy from each other or independence from one of them or both at once ”** (21; xxii).

* Emergent - letters. ", arising spontaneously. In the sociological sense, "emergent" means "responding to a given situation, or actively responding to influences (from within the system or from the outside) at any given moment." Emergent properties are the ability of sociocultural systems to be active, reacting to the events of a given moment. (Ed.)

** Here M. Archer uses the term “conflation”, borrowed from linguistics and meaning the formation of a new word from two autonomous roots (for example, “interaction” is a combination of “mutual” and “action.” The combination of these words is denoted by the linguistic term (elision ) "Elision"). In this case, the following is meant. The principle of conceptual duality of the agent's structure, in contrast to the principle of epistemological duality, does not allow, from the point of view of M. Archer, to consider the process of combining the structure and the agent into something whole while maintaining their autonomy from each other and even from this new formation. (Ed.)

Two arguments can be advanced in favor of analytic duality. One is methodological. The idea of action and structure as constituting elements of each other prevents "the study of their mutual play" and, therefore, does not allow one to discover "their mutual influence" (21; 13-14). Another, more explicit, argument has an ontological character: in this case, action and structure are indeed different, since “structural conditioning”, “social interaction” and subsequent “development of structure” occur at different time points (19; 61). “The structure is logically fed by the actions that transform it; and the “development of the structure” logically lags behind these actions in time ”(19; 72). As for culture, its future is shaped in the present from the heritage of the past thanks to ongoing innovations ”(21; xxiv). So the principle of duality leads to the second assumption, typical for the theory of morphogenesis, namely, the cyclical nature of the interchange of action-structure.

In his last work, Archer puts forward another thesis: "Activity not only promotes structural and cultural change, but also itself changes in the course of this process" (22; 2). This thesis opens up new opportunities for the study of "activity morphogenesis". In this context, the most important features of activity are also manifested - the ability to think, purposefulness, the desire for advancement and innovation, coupled with the possibility of realizing the human "ability to know" or omniscience (22; 5). Two types of subjects - "corporate agents" and "primary agents" - also have different characteristics in terms of their morphogenesis. Thus, a third principle is added to the theory of morphogenesis. Archer calls it “double morphogenesis” and describes it as a process “in which the formation of both structures and activities is the result of their interaction. The structure is a jointly generated result of interaction: the activity is formed and changes the structure in the process of its own change ”(22; 33). Probably the most important point of Archer's theory is the linking of dialectics to historical time.

A. N. Leontiev and S. L. Rubinstein are the founders of the Soviet school of psychology, which is based on the abstract concept of personality. It was based on the works of L. S. Vygotsky devoted to the cultural-historical approach. This theory reveals the term "activity" and other concepts related to it.

History of creation and main provisions of the concept

S. L. Rubinstein and A. N. activity was created in the 30s of the twentieth century. They developed this concept in parallel, without discussing or consulting each other. Nevertheless, their works turned out to have a lot in common, since scientists used the same sources when developing psychological theory. The founders relied on the work of the talented Soviet thinker L. S. Vygotsky, and the philosophical theory of Karl Marx was also used when creating the concept.

The main thesis A. N. Leontyev's theory of activity is briefly stated as follows: it is not consciousness that forms activity, but activity that forms consciousness.

In the 30s, on the basis of this position, Sergei Leonidovich defines the main position of the concept, which is based on the close relationship between consciousness and activity. This means that the human psyche is formed during activity and in the process of work, and in them it manifests itself. Scientists pointed out that it is important to understand the following: consciousness and activity form a unity that has an organic basis. Alexey Nikolaevich emphasized that this connection should in no case be confused with identity, otherwise all the provisions that take place in the theory lose their validity.

So, according to A. N. Leont'ev, "activity - the consciousness of the individual" is the main logical interconnection of the whole concept.

The main psychological phenomena of the theory of activity of A. N. Leontiev and S. L. Rubinstein

Each person unconsciously reacts to an external stimulus with a set of reflex reactions, but activity is not included in the number of these stimuli, since it is regulated by the mental work of the individual. Philosophers in their presented theory consider consciousness as a certain reality, which is not intended for self-observation by a person. It can manifest itself only thanks to the system of subjective relations, in particular, through the activity of the individual, in the process of which he manages to develop.

Alexey Nikolaevich Leontiev clarifies the provisions voiced by his colleague. He says that the human psyche is built into his activity, it is formed thanks to her and manifests itself in activity, which ultimately leads to a close connection between the two concepts.

The personality in the theory of activity of A. N. Leont'ev is considered in unity with action, work, motive, operation, need and emotions.

The concept of the activities of A. N. Leontiev and S. L. Rubinstein is a whole system that includes methodological and theoretical principles that make it possible to study the psychological phenomena of a person. The concept of A. N. Leont'ev's activity contains such a provision that the main subject that helps to study the processes of consciousness is activity. This research approach began to take shape in psychology Soviet Union in the 20s of the twentieth century. In 1930, two interpretations of activity were already proposed. The first position belongs to Sergei Leonidovich, who formulated the principle of unity given above in the article. The second formulation was described by Aleksey Nikolaevich together with representatives of the Kharkov School of Psychology, who determined the generality of the structure, affecting external and internal activities.

The basic concept in the theory of activity of A. N. Leontiev

Activity is a system that is built on the basis of various forms of implementation, expressed in the subject's attitude to material objects and the world as a whole. This concept was formulated by Alexey Nikolaevich, and Sergey Leonidovich Rubinstein defined activity as a set of any actions that are aimed at achieving the set goals. According to A. N. Leont'ev, activity in the consciousness of the individual plays a primary role.

Activity structure

In the 30s of the twentieth century, in the psychological school, A. N. Leontiev put forward the idea of the need to build a structure of activity in order to make the definition of a given concept complete.

Activity structure:

This pattern is valid for reading from top to bottom and vice versa.

There are two forms of activity:

external;
internal.

External activities

External activities include various forms, which are expressed in the subject-practical activity. In this view, the interaction of subjects and objects occurs, the latter are openly presented for external observation. Examples of this form of activity are:

the work of mechanics with the help of tools - this can be hammering in nails or tightening bolts with a screwdriver;
production of material items by specialists on machine tools;
games of children, for the implementation of which extraneous things are required;
room cleaning: sweeping floors with a broom, wiping windows with a rag, manipulating furniture;
construction of houses by workers: laying bricks, laying foundations, inserting windows and doors, etc.

Internal activities

Internal activity differs in that the subject's interactions with any images of objects are hidden from direct observation. Examples of this kind are:

solution math problem scientists when used inaccessible to the eye mental activity;
inner work an actor over a role that includes reflections, experiences, anxiety, etc .;
the process of creating a work by poets or writers;
coming up with a script for a school play;
mental guessing of the riddle by the child;
emotions evoked in a person while watching a touching film or listening to soulful music.

Motive

The general psychological theory of activity by A. N. Leontiev and S. L. Rubinstein define motive as an object of human need, it turns out that in order to characterize this term, it is necessary to turn to the needs of the subject.

In psychology, the motive is the engine of any existing activity, that is, it is a push that brings the subject into an active state, or a goal for which a person is ready to do something.

Needs

The need for a general theory of the activity of A.N. Leontyev and S.L. Rubinstein has two decryptions:

A need is a kind of "internal condition", which is a prerequisite for any activity performed by the subject. But Alexey Nikolaevich points out that given view needs is not able in any case to cause directed activity, because its main goal becomes orientational-research activity, which, as a rule, is directed to the search for such objects that would be able to relieve a person of the felt desire. Sergei Leonidovich adds that this concept is a "virtual need", which is expressed only within oneself, therefore, a person experiences it in his state or feeling of "incompleteness".
Need is the engine of any activity of the subject, which directs and regulates it in the material world after a person meets an object. This term is characterized as "actual need", that is, the need for a specific thing at a certain point in time.

"Objectified" need

This concept can be traced on the example of a newly born gosling, which has not yet met with any specific object, but its properties have already been fixed in the mind of the chick - they were passed on to him from the mother in the very general view at the genetic level, so he does not have the desire to follow any thing that appears in front of his eyes at the time of hatching from the egg. This happens only during the meeting of a gosling, which has its own need, with an object, because it does not yet have a formed idea of the appearance of its desire in the material world. This thing in the chick fits in the subconscious mind the scheme of a genetically fixed exemplary image, so it is able to satisfy the needs of the gosling. This is how a given object is imprinted, which fits the desired characteristics, as an object that satisfies the corresponding needs, and the need takes on an "objective" form. This is how a suitable thing becomes a motive for a certain activity of the subject: in this case, in the subsequent time, the chick will everywhere follow its "objectified" need.

Thus, Alexey Nikolaevich and Sergey Leonidovich mean that the need at the very first stage of its formation is not such, it is at the beginning of its development the body's need for something that is outside the subject's body, despite the fact that it is reflected on his mental level.

Target

This concept describes that the goal is the directions for the achievement of which a person implements a certain activity in the form of appropriate actions that are prompted by the subject's motive.

Differences between purpose and motive

Aleksey Nikolayevich introduces the concept of "goal" as a desired result arising in the process of a person planning any activity. He emphasizes that the motive is different from the given term, because it is what any actions are performed for. The goal is what is planned to be done to realize the motive.

As reality shows, in Everyday life the terms given above in the article never coincide, but are complementary to each other. Also, it should be understood that there is a certain connection between the motive and the goal, therefore they are dependent on each other.

A person always understands what is the purpose of the actions performed or assumed by him, that is, his task is conscious. It turns out that a person always knows exactly what he is going to do. Example: applying to university, passing pre-selected entrance exams, etc.

The motive in almost all cases is unconscious or unconscious for the subject. That is, a person may not even guess about the main reasons for performing any activity. Example: an applicant really wants to apply to a particular institution - he explains this by the fact that the profile of this educational institution matches his interests and desired future profession, in fact, the main reason for choosing this university is the desire to be close to your beloved girl who is studying at this university.

Emotions

Analysis of the subject's emotional life is a direction that is considered leading in the theory of activity of A. N. Leontiev and S. L. Rubinstein.

Emotions are a person's direct experience of the meaning of a goal (motive can also be considered the subject of emotions, because at the subconscious level it is defined as a subjective form of an existing goal, for which it manifests itself internally in the psyche of an individual).

Emotions allow a person to understand what the true motives of his behavior and activities are. If a person achieves the set goal, but does not experience the desired satisfaction from this, that is, on the contrary, negative emotions arise, this means that the motive has not been realized. Consequently, the success that the individual has achieved is actually imaginary, because what all the activities were undertaken for was not achieved. Example: an applicant entered the institute where his beloved is studying, but she was expelled a week before that, which devalues the success that the young man achieved.

Psychological theory activity was created in Soviet psychology and has been developing for over 80 years. She owes the work of domestic psychologists: Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1896-1934), Sergei Leonidovich Rubinstein (1889-1960), Alexei Nikolaevich Leontiev (1903–1979), Alexander Romanovich Luria (1902-1977), Alexander Vladimirovich Zaporozhets (1905-1981), Peter Yakovlevich Halperin(1902-1988) and many others.

The main difference between this theory and other areas of psychology of that time was that the authors of the theory of activity adopted the philosophy of dialectical materialism - the theory Karl Marx, and above all its main thesis for psychology that it is not consciousness that determines being, activity, but, on the contrary, the being, human activity determine his consciousness. This general philosophical thesis found a concrete psychological development in the theory of activity.

Thus, theory of activity– a system of methodological and theoretical principles for the study of mental phenomena. The main subject of research is the activity that mediates all mental processes. This approach began to take shape in Russian psychology in the 1920s. In the 1930s, it was proposed two interpretations activity approach in psychology - S.L. Rubinstein, who formulated the principle of the unity of consciousness and activity, and A. N. Leontiev, who, together with other representatives of the Kharkov psychological school, developed the problem of the relationship between external and internal activity.

To begin with, let's define the differences between "internal" and "external" activities. Internal activity differs from external activity in that it is performed not with real objects, but with their images, and instead of real product a mental result is obtained.

V Rubinstein's approach essential objective manifestations of the psyche are viewed through activity. When deciding the question of the relationship between external practical activity and consciousness, the position is taken that it is impossible to consider "internal" mental activity as forming as a result of the collapse of the "external" practical. (As it was formulated by Leontiev.) In the formulation of the principle of mental determinism, external causes act through internal conditions. With this interpretation, activity and consciousness are viewed not as two forms of manifestation of a single, differing in the means of empirical analysis, but as two instances that form an indissoluble unity.

Rubinstein put forward and convincingly substantiated his principled new idea that, contrary to widespread theories, the genetically original form of thinking in children is initially practical action, not speech and not conceptual thinking... “Directly really in contact with objective reality, penetrating inside it and transforming it , it is an extremely powerful means of shaping thinking that reflects objective reality... Therefore, action, as it were, carries thinking on its edge, penetrating into objective reality, "- such a fundamental conclusion about the primary form of thinking was made in 1935 by Rubinstein, developing and concretizing his subjective-activity approach in psychology.

In our time, it has become generally accepted for many psychologists that thinking in ontogenesis goes through three main stages: visual-active (arising already in infants), visual-figurative and conceptual (theoretical). The emergence of thinking as a result practical action for Rubinstein, it is only a particular, albeit essential, case in the general problem of self-regulation, in general, the determination of the subject and his activity (activity, behavior, etc .; behavior is understood here not in the behavioristic, but in the moral sense). This fundamentally important problem the scientist began to develop systematically in 1948-1949, when he put forward and experimentally substantiated his innovative general scientific principle of determination: the external through the internal, i.e. external causes, influences, etc. not directly and not directly determine what or on whom they affect, but only through internal conditions.

V Leontief's theory of activity as the subject of analysis, activity is considered as an inseparable component of the psyche. When deciding on the relationship between external practical activity and consciousness, the position is taken that the internal plan of consciousness is formed in the process of curtailing practical actions. With this interpretation, consciousness and activity are distinguished as an image and the process of its formation, the image being "accumulated movement", curtailed actions.

Comparison of the two approaches reveals fundamental difference in explaining the mental through the concept of activity. For Rubinstein, activity acts as the primary basis for the formation of a person's thinking, while for Leont'ev, such a primary basis is communication. Both approaches present a different view of the mechanism of personality formation. According to Rubinstein, external practical activity affects the personality not directly, but through "internal conditions", while according to Leontiev's concept, the external "rolls up" in the personality directly.

The use of the theory of activity to explain the characteristics of the human psyche is based on the concept of higher mental functions, developed by L.S. Vygotsky. Higher mental functions - complex mental processes, social in their formation, which are mediated and therefore arbitrary. These include logical memory, theoretical thinking, application-mediated perception assistive devices, speech signs created in the process historical development... According to Vygotsky, mental phenomena can be “natural”, determined primarily by a genetic factor, and “cultural”, built on top of the first, higher mental functions, which are entirely formed under the influence of social influences. The main feature of higher mental functions is their mediation by certain "psychological tools", signs that have arisen as a result of the long socio-historical development of mankind, to which speech belongs above all.

Sign mediation is the main theoretical construct cultural history theory Vygotsky as a way of controlling behavior carried out by the individual himself. Everything in it mental development is considered as a change in the structure of the mental process due to the inclusion of a sign in it, which leads to the transformation of natural, direct processes into cultural, mediated ones.

The genesis of higher mental functions is carried out as follows. Initially, the higher mental function is realized as a form of interaction between people, between an adult and a child, as an interpsychic process, and only then - as an internal, intrapsychic process. In this case, external means (actions), mediating this interaction, pass into internal ones, that is, they occur. interiorization... If at the first stages of the formation of a higher mental function, it is an expanded form of objective activity, relies on relatively simple sensory and motor processes, then later actions are curtailed, becoming automated mental actions.

The theory of S.L. Rubinstein and A.N. Leontiev served as the basis modern views on activity, although the approach of A.N. Leontiev gained great popularity among the scientific schools of Russia. In the book “Activity. Consciousness. Personality ”Alexey Nikolaevich expounded his theory in the most complete way.

Activity a person has a complex hierarchical structure. It consists of several "layers", or levels... Let's call these levels, moving from top to bottom:

1) the level of special activities;

2) the level of actions;

3) the level of operations;

4) the level of psychophysiological functions.

Action Is the basic unit of activity analysis. It is a process aimed at realizing a goal.

Characteristics of "action":

Action includes an act of consciousness in the form of goal setting;

Action is at the same time an act of behavior, i.e. exists unity of consciousness and behavior;

Action presupposes an active principle in the subject (in the form of a goal), i.e. psychological activity theory states principle of activity;

The concept of action "brings" human activity into the objective and social world.

The concept of action is one of the main concepts in the theory of activity. Therefore, its characteristics are consonant with the main provisions or principles of the theory of activity.

Activity theory principles:

1. Consciousness cannot be regarded as closed in itself: it must be brought into the activity of the subject.

2. Behavior cannot be considered in isolation from the human consciousness. When considering behavior, consciousness should not only be preserved, but also defined in its fundamental function (the principle of the unity of consciousness and behavior).

3. Activity is an active, purposeful process (principle of activity).

4. Human actions are substantive; they realize social (production and cultural) goals (the principle of objectivity of human activity and the principle of its social conditioning).

Operation Is a way of performing an action. The nature of the transaction depends on the conditions in which the action is performed.

The goal given under certain conditions in the theory of activity is called task.

Under psychophysiological functions in the theory of activity, the physiological provisions of mental processes are understood. These include a number of abilities of our body, such as the ability to feel, to form and fix traces of past influences, motor ability, etc. Accordingly, they speak of sensory, mnemonic, motor functions. This level also includes innate mechanisms fixed in morphology nervous system, and those that mature during the first months of life.

There is a memory disease called "Korsakov's syndrome" (named after the outstanding Russian psychiatrist SS Korsakov, who first described it). It consists in the loss of precisely the mnemonic function. With this disease, events are not remembered at all, even those that happened a few minutes ago. Such patients may, for example, say hello to the doctor several times a day, not remember whether they ate today or not. One patient continuously read to his mother a passage he liked in the book, immediately forgetting that he had just read it, and repeated this dozens of times in a row.

Having considered the levels of activity, let us turn to its structure : the components of the activity are purpose, motive and action.

1) Purpose of activity connected with needs- an organic need for something. According to Russian psychologists who developed the theory of activity, a person has the following innate needs:

Biological (need for food, drink, sleep, etc.),

In contacts with their own kind and

Cognitive.

An impressive experiment that demonstrates the existence of a cognitive need was carried out on infants two to three months of age.

The child was given a pacifier and connected through a rubber tube to the TV. In this case, the nipple served as a pneumatic sensor. The mechanism of action of the installation was as follows: if a child sucked a nipple, then the TV screen began to glow and an image appeared on it - either a still picture or the face of a talking woman. If the baby stopped sucking, then the screen gradually faded.

The child was full (this required condition experience), but even in a well-fed state, as you know, occasionally slightly sucking on the nipple. So, in the course of the experiment, the child sooner or later discovered the connection of his sucking movements with the image on the screen, and then the following happened: he began to intensely suck the nipple, without interrupting the movement for a second!

This result convincingly shows that already at the age of two months, the child seeks and actively obtains information from the outside world. Such activity is a manifestation of the cognitive need.

The cognitive need, of course, also develops with the growth of the child. Very soon, in addition to perceptual research and practical manipulation (with the help of which the child also learns the properties of objects), intellectual forms of cognition appear. They are expressed in the classic children's questions: "What is this?", "Why?", "Why?", With which the preschooler literally falls asleep to adults. Then there is an interest in reading, study, research. According to I.P. Pavlova, science is nothing more than an incredibly expanded and more complicated orienting reflex.

We also considered the hierarchy of needs and their types when studying A. Maslow's theory (see topic 5.4).

2) Motive- this is an objectified need, what prompts a person to activity.

For example, children, left alone, play lotto for money (the story of AP Chekhov "The Children"). All five of them want to play (need), but their motives are different: money, pride, the process of the game itself, a passion for misunderstandings and the arithmetic of the game.

Motives give rise to actions, i.e. lead to the formation of goals, and goals, as you know, are always realized. The motives themselves are not always realized. As a result, all motives can be divided into two large classes: the first includes perceived motives, the second - unconscious ones. In general, various types of motives are studied in psychology: organic (associated with the growth, development and self-preservation of the organism), material, spiritual, social, functional (satisfied with the help of cultural forms of activity, for example, playing sports).

In the theory of activity, one mechanism is indicated formation of motives which got the name mechanism for shifting the motive to the goal(another version of its name is a mechanism for turning a goal into a motive).

The essence of this mechanism is that the goal, previously prompted to its implementation by some motive, eventually acquires an independent incentive force, that is, it itself becomes a motive.

Every person has encountered this mechanism in life. Familiar from school life are such cases when a student begins to willingly engage in some subject (or sport) because he enjoys communicating with his beloved teacher (coach). But over time, it turns out that interest in this subject has deepened and the student continues to study this subject for his own sake and, perhaps, even chooses it as his future specialty.

3) And finally actions- relatively complete elements of activity aimed at achieving intermediate goals, subordinate to the general plan.

Consider main activities characteristic of a person.

Communication- the first type of activity that arises in the process of individual development of a person, followed by play, study and work... All these types are of a developing nature (in their process, intellectual and personal development occurs).

Communication Is a type of activity aimed at the exchange of information between communicating people. Can be emotional, verbal, non-verbal. It also pursues the goal of establishing mutual understanding, personal and business relationship, providing mutual assistance and influencing each other.

The game- a type of activity that does not result in the production of any material or ideal product (with the exception of business games). Children's play is a historically emerging type of activity, which consists in the reproduction by children of the actions of adults and the relations between them in a special conditional form.

Teaching- the type of activity, the purpose of which is the acquisition of knowledge, skills, and abilities by a person (ZUN).

Work- the type of activity thanks to which a person built modern society, created objects of material and spiritual culture, transformed living conditions for further development.

Control questions

1. What are the names of scientists, founders of the theory of activity.

2. What thesis of the Marxist theory formed the basis of the activity approach?

3. What is the difference between the theory of activity of S.L. Rubinstein and A. N. Leontiev?

4. What is the contribution to the theory of activity made by L.S. Vygotsky?

5. What is interiorization?

6. Name the highest mental functions of a person.

7. Indicate the basic principles of the activity approach.

8. Describe the levels of activity.

9. Describe the three components of the activity.

10. What are the innate needs of a person?

11. What kinds of motives do you know? Which ones are dominant in your life?

12. What is the essence of the mechanism for turning a goal into a motive?

13. What are the main types of human activity.

Literature

1. Big psychological dictionary / Comp. and total. ed. B.G. Meshcheryakov, V.P. Zinchenko. - SPb: Prime-Evroznak, 2007, - 672 p.

2. Gippenreiter Yu.B. Introduction to General Psychology. Course of lectures / Yu.B. Gippenreiter. - M .: Publishing house of Moscow. un-ta, 1988 .-- 320 p.

3. Krysko V.G. Psychology and pedagogy in diagrams and tables / V.G. Krysko. - Minsk: Harvest, 1999 .-- 384 p.

4. Nemov R.S. Psychology. Textbook. for students of higher. ped. study. institutions / R.S. Nemov. - In 2 books. Book 1. General foundations of psychology. - M .: Education: Vlados, 1994 .-- 576 p.

5. Psychological dictionary / Under the general scientific. ed. P.S. Gurevich. - M .: OLMA Media Group, OLMA PRESS Education, 2007. - 800 p.

6. Dictionary of a practical psychologist / Comp. S.Yu. Golovin. - Minsk: Harvest, 1998 .-- 800 p.

7. Stolyarenko L. D. Fundamentals of Psychology. 5th ed., Rev. and add. / L.D. Stolyarenko. - Rostov n / a: Phoenix, 2002 .-- 672 p.