维果茨基心理学理论述评

维果茨基是苏联早期一位才华横溢的杰出心理学家,社会文化历史学派的创始人。近年来国际上出现的维果茨基研究热,充分显示了维果茨基心理学思想对现代心理科学的重要的现实意义。维果茨基的心理学理论异常丰富,主要包括活动理论、工具理论、思维和言语理论、教学和发展理论、心理学方法论等。维果茨基心理学理论是对意识的文化历史决定的研究的重要贡献,其理论不足之处主要带有抽象社会观点的色彩等。     

当前俄罗斯维果茨基心理学思想研究的现状

当前俄罗斯维果茨基心理学思想研究的现状表现为：(1)对维果茨基心理学遗产的整理出版及其现代意义的研究;(2)维果茨基心理学思想发展阶段与维果茨基概念的逻辑结构研究;(3)对维果茨基心理学思想的发展;(4)俄罗斯心理学界对维果茨基及化历史心理学的批评。作认为,在当前俄罗斯对维果茨基的研究远不及西方“维果茨基热”有其重要的原因：当前俄罗斯的社会现实因素;西方维果茨基热是由于西方心理学自身的缺陷;与现代西方心理学的化转向有关。     

维果茨基心理学遗产在西方

近30年来,维果茨基心理学遗产在西方赢得了广泛的声誉,引起了西方各国心理学家的浓厚兴趣,形成了所谓“维果茨基现象”。这说明维果茨基的心理学思想具有强大的生命力和影响力。维果茨基不仅仅属于俄罗斯,而且属于全世界心理学文化。     

我国维果茨基心理学思想研究的历史与现状

维果茨基堪称心理学的巨人,在现代心理科学中享有崇高的地位。迄今为止我国对维果茨基的研究已经有半个世纪的历史,期间走过了由不重视到重视,由分散研究到有计划有组织研究的道路。全国维果茨基研究会自1998年成立以来,我国学者对维果茨基心理学思想的研究无论是在理论方面,还是在应用和实证方面均取得了显著的成果。     

维果茨基及其对现代心理学的贡献——从纪念维果茨基诞辰100周年国际会议说起

维果茨基及其对现代心理学的贡献--从纪念维果茨基诞辰100周年国际会议说起龚浩然杭州大学心理学系维果茨基(Л·С·Выготский1896-1934)是苏联早期杰出的心理学家,社会文化历史学派的创始人,他在心理学的许多方面都作出了巨大的贡献,留下的著作有186种200多万字。     

社会文化历史观对小学现代教学模式启示

维果茨基在儿童发展与教育心理学研究等领域获得丰厚的研究成果,对世界各国心理学的发展产生了深远的影响。介绍维果茨基社会文化历史观的主要内容,探讨其对小学现代教学模式的启示,从而提升小学现代教学模式水平。     

全国维果茨基研究会第二届学术年会召开

全国维果茨基研究会第二届学术年会于 1 999年 1 0月 3 0～ 1 1月 1日在浙江省上虞市召开。会议围绕对维果茨基的基本学术思想的评价 ,维果茨基教育思想与当前我国的教育改革 ,国际上的“维果茨基热”与 2 1世纪心理学走向的关系等三个主题 ,以主题报告、专题发言和学术讲座等形式进行研讨与交流。有 2 4位代表在会上发言 ,其中有 7个专题报告。会议期间还就维果茨基研究会今后的发展方向进行了讨论。代表们发言踊跃 ,气氛热烈 ,提出了许多富有建设性的意见和建议。最后 ,会议对理事会组成人员作了适当的调整。增补谢韬教授为名誉会长、王作…     

试论Л·С·维果茨基的文化历史发展观

维果茨基(1896—1934)是苏联建国初期杰出的马克思主义心理学家,他在心理学的许多领域内所进行的一系列的创造性的研究,奠定了苏联心理学后来发展的基础。他所提出的许多心理学思想可以说在很大程度上决定了苏联心理学今天的面貌,因此他“在苏联心理学的发展史上具有特殊的地位。”苏联心理学六十多年来的研究成果在许多方面都是受维果茨基心理学思想的启发与指导而取得的。例如对人的心理的历史观、活动观、内化观、系统观以及今天在我们教     

维果茨基学说对于社会发展实践的启示

科学发展观的提出与落实,对于我国可持续发展等重大战略问题的解决,具有深远的意义.杰出的马克思主义心理学家维果茨基的伟大学说,是落实科学发展观可资借鉴的理论.借助维果茨基的伟大学说而落实科学发展观的进程,可以分"三步走".第一步,是将维果茨基学说的心理学概念、命题和规律,转化为相应的经济学、社会学、人类学、民族学等学科的概念、命题和规律,并将维果茨基根据实验研究而获得的心理学结论,作为经济学、社会学、人类学、民族学等学科的研究假设.第二步,是参照关于儿童青少年发展与教学关系问题的四种看法,明确弱者发展与强者支持的辩证关系.第三步,是围绕关于强者支持与弱者发展之关系的一系列研究假设,提出一系列研究课题,并展开具体的实验研究,最终,将其研究成果推广到中国社会与经济发展的具体实践之中.     

分歧中的互补:皮亚杰和维果茨基发展心理学理论的比较研究

目前对皮亚杰和维果茨基发展心理学理论的比较研究多采用比较差异性和寻找相似点的方法,而该文试图在皮亚杰和维果茨基的心理学理论的分歧点中探寻两者的互补性：从儿童自我中心言语的理论分歧中看人类发展方向的互补性;从对发展过程本质的不同理解看互补性;从理解成人和同伴对儿童发展的影响中看互补性;从理解发展阶段普遍性的分歧看互补性：从心理调节观的分歧看互补性。     

Ritual Education and Moral Development: A Comparison of Xunzi and Vygotsky

Xunzi’s 荀子 advocacy for moral education is well-documented; precisely how his program bolsters moral development, and why a program touting study of ritual could be effective, remain subjects of debate. I argue that these matters can be clarified by appealing to the theory of learning and development offered by Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky posited that development depends primarily on social interactions mediated by sociocultural tools that modify learners’ cognitive architecture, enabling increasingly sophisticated thought. Vygotsky’s theory is remarkably similar to Xunzi’s account of how studying and practicing ritual restructures learners’ moral psychology. Specifically, both Vygotsky and Xunzi offer nonnativist accounts of psychosocial development that emphasize the centrality of sociocultural tools for learning. This comparison yields a more nuanced and empirically supported interpretation of Xunzi’s account of moral education, as well as an account that has applications in contemporary work in moral education and development.     

Sophistry in Vygotsky: Contributions to the Rhetorical and Poetic Pedagogy

Studies in Philosophy and Education - This work relates L. S. Vygotsky’s theory to the rhetorical and poetic pedagogy, which is a set of educational ideas and practices derived from the...     

Vygotsky Circle as a Personal Network of Scholars: Restoring Connections Between People and Ideas

The name of Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) is well-known among contemporary psychologists and educators. The cult of Vygotsky, also known as “Vygotsky boom”, is probably conducive to continuous reinterpretation and wide dissemination of his ideas, but hardly beneficial for their understanding as an integrative theory of human cultural and biosocial development. Two problems are particularly notable. These are, first, numerous gaps and age-old biases and misconceptions in the historiography of Soviet psychology, and, second, the tendency to overly focus on the figure of Vygotsky to the neglect of the scientific activities of a number of other protagonists of the history of cultural-historical psychology. This study addresses these two problems and reconstructs the history and group dynamics within the dense network of Vygotsky’s collaborators and associates, and overviews their research, which is instrumental in understanding Vygotsky’s integrative theory in its entirety as a complex of interdependent ideas, methods, and practices.     

Concerning Interpretations of Activity Theory

Activity theory (AT) is the most recognised part of Russian psychology outside Russia. However the general view of AT in international science is rather unilateral, lacking substantial aspects and areas necessary for proper understanding. This article is aimed at expanding the image of AT dominant in the mainstream which reduces the AT trend to A.N. Leontiev’s theory. This reduction impoverishes the creative potentialities of the trend, and decreases the ability of AT to contribute to international science. We aim to reveal that AT is not limited to Leontiev’s approach, to explain which ideas of the founders of AT, S.L. Rubinstein and L.S. Vygotsky, were pursued and which were rejected by A.N. Leontiev, and to assess another important contribution to the AT trend - the theory of B.G. Ananiev, where the ideas of AT’s founders were developed which were not succeeded by A.N. Leontiev. Historical causes and consequences of the general reduction of the image of AT in the mainstream to Leontiev’s theory are considered: why the discrepancies between views of Rubinstein, Vygotsky and Leontiev were hardly ever discussed in public and why other theories contemporary to Leontiev’s theory were never given account appropriate to their value in Russia and remain almost unknown abroad.     

Vygotsky and Spinoza

Studies in East European Thought - The article analyzes Lev Vygotsky’s attempts to utilize Spinoza’s philosophical ideas in solving the methodological crisis of psychology in the 1920s...     

Piaget and Vygotsky: Many resemblances,and a crucial difference

Piaget and Vygotsky are two influential developmental psychologists. One can even say that their contributions to developmental psychology, albeit different, are similarly remarkable and unique. This article is in four parts. In the first part, I refer briefly to a commonly noticed difference between Vygotsky’s and Piaget’s theories. In the second part, I show that there are many resemblances between Vygotsky and Piaget. In the third part, I argue that in spite of such resemblances, there exists a crucial, and generally unnoticed, difference between Piaget’s and Vygotsky’s theories, and that this difference underlies the way each author addresses the following issues: 1) the origins of development and the motor of development; 2) the relationships among equal peers vs. those based on authorities, as they are sources of development and learning; 3) the more appropriate methods for studying developmental changes; 4) the importance of the distinction between true vs. necessary knowledge; and 5) the role of transformation and personal reconstruction vs. that of transmission and social influence in the phenomena of development and learning. Finally, I summarize the main ideas and arguments which I elaborate throughout this article, and mention what can be gained when the generally ignored aforementioned difference is noticed.     

Vygotsky's Theory of Creativity

In Educational Psychology (1997/1926), Vygotsky pleaded for a realistic approach to children's literature. He is, among other things, critical of Chukovsky's story "Crocodile" and maintains that this story deals with nonsense and gibberish, without social relevance. This approach Vygotsky would leave soon, and, in Psychology of Art (1971/1925), in which he develops his theory of art, he talks about connections between nursery rhymes and children's play, exactly as the story of Chukovsky had done with the following argument: By dragging a child into a topsy-turvy world, we help his intellect work and his perception of reality. In his book Imagination and Creativity in Childhood (1995/1930), Vygotsky goes further and develops his theory of creativity. The book describes how Vygotsky regards the creative process of the human consciousness, the link between emotion and thought, and the role of the imagination. To Vygotsky, this brings to the fore the issue of the link between reality and imagination, and he discusses the issue of reproduction and creativity, both of which relate to the entire scope of human activity. Interpretations of Vygotsky in the 1990s have stressed the role of literature and the development of a cultural approach to psychology and education. It has been overlooked that Vygotsky started his career with work on the psychology of art.     

Getting Vygotskian about theory of mind: Mediation,dialogue, and the development of social understanding

The ideas of Vygotsky [Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky, (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum. (Original work published 1934.)] have been increasingly influential in accounting for social–environmental influences on the development of social understanding (SU). In the first part of this article, I examine how Vygotskian ideas have to date been recruited to explanations of the development of SU. Next, I present a model of SU development which draws on two implications of Vygotsky’s ideas: the importance of semiotic mediation for mental functioning, and the dialogic nature of the higher mental functions. I then consider the value of the proposed model in accounting for evidence from three areas of enquiry: the typical development of SU in infancy and early childhood, relations between individual differences in SU and social–environmental variables, and atypical development. The model is suggested to be particularly helpful in understanding the transition from intentional-agent to mental-agent understanding, and the role of language in SU. Remaining challenges include a need to specify further the cognitive processes underlying internalization, and to gather more extensive evidence on the roles of typical and atypical social experience in SU development.     

Constructionism versus what?

Constructionism is a theoretical perspective with great potential usefulness for the study of religion. However, the theory is often assumed rather than clarified, and it is often reduced to its extreme relativistic versions. As a result, its value has stagnated even as talk of constructs has proliferated. Constructionism has been portrayed as the other of religion's two realisms: theological and phenomenological. It has been cast in the role of a conveniently discounted counter-position. Constructionist work in the study of religion, by failing to clarify its theoretical basis adequately and by too often accepting the role of antagonist to realism, shares responsibility for this misleading and detrimental characterisation. Lack of due attention to theory has obscured the status and claims of constructionism. This theoretical perspective is not necessarily reductionist or radically relativist, and it is not simply the opposite of realist or sui generis approaches to religion. Constructionism can help us understand how historically and culturally contingent religious phenomena arise from the raw materials of our physical and social worlds.

The first two sections of this article present a brief sketch of the development and key characteristics of constructionism, illustrating something of its breadth and variety. In the third section a consideration of constructionism in religious studies demonstrates the need to clarify three key issues. First, constructionist approaches are not necessarily anti-realist and so can be consistent with critical theological or sui generis perspectives. Second, the overwhelming lack of explicitly developed theory has obscured and obstructed the usefulness of constructionism in religious studies. Third, the relationship between constructionism and other theoretical positions needs to be clarified.     

A Window in Time: A Response to “Disorders of Temporality and The Subjective Experience of Time: Unresponsive Objects and the Vacuity of the Future” by Stephen Seligman

This response to Stephen Seligman’s “Disorders of Temporality and The Subjective Experience of Time: Unresponsive Objects and the Vacuity of the Future” considers Seligman’s ideas in the context of field theory. Seligman’s notion of becoming a self in time is elaborated through the concept, derived from field theory, of how time assumes an “essential ambiguity” that may facilitate analytic change and psychological development. This response suggests further that such “essential ambiguity” in relation to time opens both the patient and analyst up to a variety of complex, bidirectional influences, such as unconsciously mediated intergenerational transmissions of trauma. In addition, this response explores Seligman’s ideas associated with an analyst’s moment-to-moment recognitions and a patient’s corresponding development of a self in time in terms of their implications for analytic participation and analytic self-care.