Redefining L. S. Vygotsky's non-classical psychology

Abstract

For many years various labels have been used when referring to the theories of L. S. Vygotsky, all of which have resulted in a most interesting, yet confusing, phenomenon. Why isn't there one label for Vygotsky's psychology? Although this type of diversity reflects a flexible and robust nature of current Vygotskian thinking internationally, it has led to confusion, with people not understanding the difference between sociocultural theory, activity theory, cultural-historical theory, and many other variations. For this reason, a new focus is slowly emerging in Russia, with an attempt to return to the roots of L. S. Vygotsky as a Russian thinker, within an expanded context of interpretation. In celebrating the 110^th centennial since Vygotsky's birth (November 2006), it is suggested that we begin to use one term related to Vygotskian thought, and that term—which was created by a Russian—is called non-classical psychology. Daniel Elkonin (1989: 478) stated that Vygotsky was the founder of non-classical psychology, with the following definition: non-classical psychology is “the science of the way the subjective world of a single person emerges from the objective world of art, the world of production tools, the world of the entire industry”. Non-classical psychology does not stand in opposition to classical psychology, but transforms it. As well, there is no such term called “non-classical philosophy,” with much of Vygotsky's theories being derived from classical philosophy. At this point in time, there is no attempt to set up new oppositions that carry empty contradictions; however, there is a call to return to the overall intentions of Vygotsky, and to clarify many general hypotheses, such as the claim that Vygotsky's psychology was simply one of “communication.” When rereading Vygotsky's texts, we want to focus on a new paradigm of synthesis/unity that reflects extremely new, often non-spatial thinking. We are ultimately viewing the concept of personality development with the actualization of “self-determination,” “self-regulation,” related to the individual, social, and cultural world, connected with Spinozian monism (which is not static in nature). Sometimes, this understanding is called free action of will. The focus on personality does not refer to the sum total of relationships of a single individual, but is actually a construct transcending the biological and the social. There is a feeling of shared development between the cultural/social, outside world, relations to other individuals and artifacts, and intra-mental/developmental growth, all of which is connected through synthesis. One basic goal of non-classical psychology is to “bridge the gap between the objective and subjective, between the realm of mind and the realm of culture, between the person and the world” (D. Leontiev 2005:26). We need to return to a view of the world both within the framework of content and process, as well as an understanding of the relationship between the external and internal. When developing new theories of Vygotskian non-classical psychology, we will need to understand that nothing is totally completed, but that everything is in a state of process and change. We have not yet grasped the notion that concepts such as “motive” and “goal” are not viewed as internal structures only; and other core concepts such as “units of analysis” simply cannot be extracted from the world of process and change to be dissected, analyzed, and put together again. “Units of analysis” must be understood within a holistic flow model of change. As well, there are many hierarchies of motives, units of analysis, activity, sense, meaning, etc. N. Bernshtein and A. A. Leontiev spoke of “levels,” and this understanding of hierarchy must be reevaluated in light of current theories today, such as sociocultural theory, cognitivism, and postmodernism. Traditionally, we tend to think of a single construct when we speak of “motive,” “goal,” “ZPD,” “units of analysis,” etc., instead of understanding asymmetrical layers that intersect. We will offer introductory thoughts to the problems resulting from the multifarious labeling of Vygotskian theory, to return to the suggestion of establishing one term of reference to Vygotskian thought, which is non-classical psychology.