I would like to begin with the fact that the process of education, which comprises a form of intellectual productive activity, represents a cycle of very long duration. This cycle is such that seven-year-old children entering school today will attain the age of most active yield only in the next millennium. In the year 2000 they will be 32 or 33. Therefore, while giving maximum attention to analysis of the conditions of today, our discussion has to be long-range, i.e., it (...) must have that near historical future in mind and project into it. (shrink)

There is a very sharp upsurge of interest in the West in the history of Russian conservative thought, particularly in its most outstanding figure, K. Leont'ev. Judge for yourself. In 1948 a monograph on him appeared in West Germany ; one appeared in the USA in 1952 ; and in Italy in 1957 . In 1966 he was inscribed in the "family of the very greatest Russian intellects," to which his large book, Scrittori Russi is devoted. Added to this is (...) N. Berdiaev's book K. N. Leont'ev, which has been translated into English and French, V. Zenkovsky's entire chapters on Leont'ev in his History of Russian Philosophy [Istoriia russkoi filosofii], 1948, and in his book Russian Thinkers and Europe [Russkie mysliteli i Evropa], 1955; and the chapters by the American historian E. Thaden, in his Conservative Nationalism in 19th Century Russia, Seattle, 1964. It thus becomes clear that Leont'ev has been forgotten in a strangely one-sided fashion. As we see, in the West he is not only not forgotten, but his ideas are, ever more obviously, becoming a powerful weapon in a very current ideological struggle. Superficial books written about him find a market. His thoughts are made the basis of very contemporary and dangerous notions. It turns out then that he has been forgotten only in our country. (shrink)

В прил. включ. законодат. и норматив. материалы.

t. 1. Obshchai︠a︡ teorii︠a︡ prava. Ugolovnoe pravo -- t. 2. Kriminologii︠a︡, sot︠s︡iologii︠a︡, konfliktologii︠a︡ -- t. 3. Politologii︠a︡, ideologii︠a︡, ėtika.

As it happened, I became acquainted with E.V. Il'enkov quite late, in the mid- or even the late 1960s. It was only a bit more than ten years before his death that I began to feel at home in his house, was able to visit without calling ahead, and was able to call him by his first name and the familiar "you"—that is, like many, many of not only his true friends but also like-minded thinkers, who became his close acquaintances, (...) most of whom justly considered themselves his pupils … The door would open wide, and Olia, Professor K.I. Salimova, Eval'd's wife and most devoted friend, not at all surprised by the unexpected guest and seemingly even quite happy at his arrival , would try first to draw him into the kitchen and feed him … which she more often than not succeeded in doing. I am not talking about myself: there were always many guests, and this is precisely how they arrived at the Il'enkovs' apartment. Recently, a critic in Literaturnaia gazeta recalled those whom he met in Eval'd's apartment in the 1960s: "This was a tight circle of like-minded thinkers," wrote the critic. "But some of them are no longer with us, while most are far away, beyond our borders." Obviously, he had not been in the house often or had forgotten things over the distance of years. There was no "circle," nor could there have been one—not with this host, not with his lifestyle and way of relating to people. I met a good hundred fine and various people in Eval'd's home: I.N. Korzhavin, V. Davydov, A. Meshcheriakov, S. Vinogradova, N. Dubinin, V. Zinchenko, A. Zinov'ev, Iu. Kamiakin, and … indeed, five pages would not be enough to list the quite famous and the not-quite-so-famous, simply ordinary people with no claim to fame. Nazym Khikmet, A.N. Leont'ev, and B.M. Kedrov were friends of the house … Ever new faces, figures, and words come to mind. I cannot forgive myself: once Eval'd Vasil'evich wanted to take me along to Iurii Liubimov's to read his play Neither God nor Tsar nor Hero … [Ni bog, ni tsar' i ni geroi], but I had some other business, something so important that I do not even remember now what it was, and it is probably not worth remembering. But most likely I was too timid to appear uninvited at the house of a person burning with creativity. The same thing happened with Galich … Eval'd liked especially his song about Zoshchenko. He did not sing it; he narrated it, but in such a way that tears always came to one's eyes. (shrink)

In recent years, many researchers engaged in diverse areas and approaches of “cultural-historical activity theory” (CHAT) realized an increasing international interest in Lev S. Vygotsky’s, A. N. Leont’ev’s, and A. Luria’s work and its continuations. Not so long ago, Yrjö Engeström noted that the activity approach was still “the best-held secret of academia” (p. 64) and highlighted the “impressive dimension of theorizing behind” it. Certainly, this remark reflects a time when CHAT was off the beaten tracks. But if this (...) situation begins to change today, in which direction will CHAT be heading? Will it continue to be one of those projects “unique for its practical, political, and civic engagement” committed “to ideals of social justice, equality, and social change” as it was in the beginning (Stetsenko & Arievitch, 2004, p. 58)? Although a positive future of CHAT seems to lie ahead, we consider in this article some of the problematics that may challenge all those who want to pass the “impressive dimensions of theorizing” from “insider” circles to a larger audience and from one generation to another as well as encourage newcomers to become part of this tradition through critical engagement in its theory and practice. A key to these engagements, we suggest, is not only the comprehensive empirical and philosophical basis, but also the role of dialectics as both topic and method. Therefore, the challenge for newcomers (as well as for “old-timers”) to take on the tradition of CHAT is not a small one indeed. We assume that a major reason for the increasing interest in CHAT lies in its potential to provide a non-reductionist approach to human development, which is due to its affinity to dialectics; however, the close interrelation to a tradition that reaches back to the theories of Georg W.F. Hegel and Karl Marx, among others, is not the easiest to master. In consideration of these difficulties, the purpose of this article is to investigate how contemporary approaches within CHAT can continue to provide a dialectical framework to preserve and renew the critical intention of this tradition, and how we run the risk of losing this sting. Thereby, we sensitize researchers to the problem of developing a cultural-historical approach within a historical situation that confronts us with new, unanswered questions. In this light, we also problematize the use of scientific language, for it may lead us to speak and argue un-dialectically when in fact we intend or ought to think dialectically. This article seeks to convey insights and arguments of how we can relate our theoretical approaches to a tradition of dialectical thinking and in what ways this is paramount for a critical engagement in theory and practice. In the first part, we therefore discuss not only some major theorems in Hegel’s and Marx’s work but also, and above all, Vygotsky’s way of developing the cultural-historical approach of psychology. Second, we argue that the contemporary, widely known version of CHAT, related to Yrjö Engeström’s theoretical and empirical work, neglects different aspects of dialectical thinking and consequently narrows its potential to a socio-critical approach to societal practice and human development. A crucial question of this scrutiny will be the notion of contradictions and how development is supposed to be achieved. In general, our intention is not only to clarify the role of dialectics as a method for activity theory but also to problematize the role of the subjects of research in CHAT and to confront ourselves with the problems of practicing and developing a critical science in face of a complex and challenging societal world. (shrink)

The article introduces the Vygotskian tradition in the realist theoretical discussion of the structure-agency problem. Archer's concept of internal conversation is discussed in terms of internalization and externalization of conversational dynamics. The article addresses in particular the methodological issue of observing how external events trigger internal use of language, and how these internal dynamics are externalized. The experience of talk is proposed as a conceptual key to the understanding of internal conversations and of the relation between structured activity and agency. (...) The experience of talk is defined with the help of the notions of emotional experience, personal sense and inner speech, as they are conceptualized in activity theory and in particular in the works of L.S. Vygotsky and A.N. Leont’ev. Students’ experiences of critical conversational events with teachers are analyzed on the basis of written autobiographical accounts. The experience of talk emerges from the analysis as a form of emotional experience in which the horizon of the individual's subjective view relates to specific circumstances external to the individual. Autobiographical accounts of critical conversations are suggested as a type of data which allows access to the experience of talk. (shrink)

My subject today is the philosophical significance of the concept of activity. I shall not be talking about philosophical consequences of empirical work done by activity theorists; there are no doubt many such consequences, but they are not my subject. I want to ask whether activity theory incorporates a fundamental philosophical vision. The activity approach obviously represents a certain way of seeing human subjects and their relation to the world. To what extent does this perspective cast light on central questions (...) of philosophy? I shall focus on the work of Eval'd Il'enkov, a philosopher whose ideas are sometimes represented as expressing the distinctive philosophical premises of the activity approach. Il'enkov is not, of course, the only thinker one might cast as a "philosopher of activity," but his association with A.N. Leont'ev makes his work the obvious starting point for an exploration of the philosophical dimensions of activity theory. (shrink)

Konstantin Leont'ev is one of those Russian thinkers about whom much has been said and written both in Russia and abroad. Interest in his works has increased steadily in the past five years: collections of his works are being published, special conferences are being held, and articles and monographs are being written. In the process it turns out that a thinker who died a hundred years ago is perceived in Russia as "our contemporary," as a clairvoyant and a prophet, but (...) also in large measure as a teacher to whom many are inclined to turn in their searches for intellectual world-view and ideological orientations. (shrink)

В работе характеризуется творческий путь крупнейшего западного философа 20 века, одного из создателей аналитической философии нашего времени Л. Витгенштейна, наследие которого оказало и продолжает оказывать влияние на развитие западной культуры и науки.