And N Leontyev wrote about his activities in a richer way. Discussions and discussions. How are activities and needs related?

ACTIVITY AND CONSCIOUSNESS

1. GENESIS OF CONSCIOUSNESS

The activity of the subject - external and internal - is mediated and regulated by the mental reflection of reality. What in the objective world appears for the subject as motives, goals and conditions of his activity must be perceived by him in one way or another, represented, understood, retained and reproduced in his memory; the same applies to the processes of his activity and to himself - to his states, properties, characteristics. Thus, activity analysis leads us to traditional topics in psychology. However, now the logic of the study turns around: the problem of the manifestation of mental processes turns into the problem of their origin, their generation by the social connections into which a person enters in the objective world.

The psychic reality that directly reveals itself to us is the subjective world of consciousness. It took centuries to free ourselves from the identification of the psychic and the conscious. What is surprising is the variety of paths that led to their distinction in philosophy, psychology, and physiology: it is enough to name the names of Leibniz, Fechner, Freud, Sechenov and Pavlov.

The decisive step was to establish the idea of ​​different levels of mental reflection. From a historical, genetic point of view, this meant recognizing the existence of the preconscious psyche of animals and the emergence in humans of a qualitatively new form of it - consciousness. Thus, new questions arose: about the objective necessity to which the emerging consciousness responds, about what generates it, about its internal structure.

Consciousness in its immediacy is the picture of the world revealed to the subject, in which he himself, his actions and states are included. For an inexperienced person, the presence of this subjective picture does not pose, of course, any theoretical problems: before him is the world, not the world and the picture of the world. This elemental realism contains the real, albeit naive, truth. Another thing is the identification of mental reflection and consciousness; this is nothing more than an illusion of our introspection.

It arises from a seemingly unlimited breadth of consciousness. By asking ourselves whether we are aware of this or that phenomenon, we set ourselves a task of awareness and, of course, solve it almost instantly. It was necessary to invent a tachistoscopic technique in order to experimentally separate the “field of perception” and the “field of consciousness.”

On the other hand, well-known and easily reproducible facts in the laboratory indicate that a person is capable of carrying out complex adaptive processes controlled by objects of the environment, without being at all aware of the presence of their image; he bypasses obstacles and even manipulates things without “seeing” them.

It’s another matter if you need to make or change a thing according to a model or depict some subject content. When I bend a wire or draw, say, a pentagon, then I need to compare the idea I have with the subject conditions, with the stages of its implementation in the product, internally I try one on the other, such comparisons require that my idea act for me as would be on the same plane with the objective world, without, however, merging with it. This is especially clear in problems for which it is necessary to first carry out “in the mind” mutual spatial displacements of images of objects correlated with each other; such, for example, is a task that requires the mental rotation of a figure inscribed in another figure.

Historically, the need for such a “presentation” (presentation) of a mental image to a subject arises only during the transition from the adaptive activity of animals to production and labor activity specific to humans. The product that the activity is now striving for does not actually exist yet. Therefore, it can regulate activity only if it is presented to the subject in a form that allows it to be compared with the source material (object of labor) and its intermediate transformations. Moreover, the mental image of the product as a goal must exist for the subject so that he can act with this image - modify it in accordance with existing conditions. Such images are the essence of conscious images, conscious representations - in a word, the essence of phenomena of consciousness.

The very necessity of the emergence of consciousness phenomena in a person, of course, does not say anything about the process of generation. She, however, clearly poses the task of studying this process, a task that did not arise at all in previous psychology. The fact is that within the framework of the traditional diodeic scheme object -> subject, the phenomenon of consciousness in the subject was accepted without any explanation, except for interpretations that allow the existence of a certain observer under the lid of our skull, contemplating the pictures that are woven in the brain nervous physiological processes.

For the first time, the method of scientific analysis of the generation and functioning of human consciousness - social and individual - was discovered by Marx. As a result, as one of the modern authors emphasizes, the subject of the study of consciousness has moved from the subjective individual to social systems of activity, so that “the method of internal observation and understanding introspection, which for a long time had a monopoly on the study of consciousness, began to crack at the seams.” In a few pages it is, of course, impossible to cover in any complete way even only the main questions of the Marxist theory of consciousness. Without claiming this, I will limit myself to only some provisions that indicate ways to solve the problem of activity and consciousness in psychology.

It is obvious that the explanation of the nature of consciousness lies in the same features of human activity that create its necessity: in its objective, objective, productive nature.

Labor activity is imprinted in its product. What occurs, in the words of Marx, is a transition of activity into a property at rest. This transition is a process of material embodiment of the objective content of activity, which is now presented to the subject, that is, appears before him in the form of an image of a perceived object.

In other words, in the very first approximation, the generation of consciousness is depicted as follows: the idea that controls activity, embodied in an object, receives its second, “objectified” existence, accessible to sensory perception; as a result, the subject seems to see his own representation in the external world; being duplicated, it is realized. This scheme is, however, untenable. It returns us to the previous subjective - but - empirical, essentially idealistic, point of view, which highlights, first of all, the fact that this transition has consciousness as its necessary prerequisite - the presence of ideas, intentions, mental plans, schemes in the subject or "models"; that these mental phenomena are objectified in activity and its products. As for the activity of the subject itself, controlled by consciousness, it performs in relation to its content only a transfer function and the function of their “reinforcement - non-reinforcement”.

However, the main thing is not to point out the active, controlling role of consciousness. The main problem is to understand consciousness as a subjective product, as a transformed form of manifestation of those social relations in nature that are carried out by human activity in the objective world.

Activity is by no means simply an exponent and carrier of a mental image, which is objectified in its product. It is not the image that is imprinted in the product, but rather the activity, the objective content that it objectively carries within itself.

The transitions subject -> activity -> object form a kind of circular movement, so it may seem indifferent which of its links or moments is taken as the initial one. However, this is not at all a movement in a vicious circle. This circle opens, and it opens precisely in the most sensory and practical activity.

Coming into direct contact with objective reality and submitting to it, activity is modified, enriched, and in this enrichment it crystallizes into a product.

Realized activity is richer and truer than the consciousness that precedes it. At the same time, for the consciousness of the subject, the contributions made by his activity remain hidden; hence it happens that consciousness can seem to be the basis of activity.

Let's put it another way. Reflection of the products of objective activity, realizing connections, relationships of social individuals appear for them as phenomena of their consciousness. However, in reality, behind these phenomena lie the mentioned objective connections and the relationships of social individuals appear for them as phenomena of their consciousness. However, in reality, behind these phenomena lie the mentioned objective connections and relationships, although not in an explicit form, but in a sublated form, hidden from the subject. At the same time, the phenomena of consciousness constitute a real moment in the movement of activity. This is their non-epiphenomenal nature, their essentiality. As V.P. Kuzmin correctly notes, the conscious image acts as an ideal measure, which is embodied in activity.

The approach to consciousness in question radically changes the formulation of the most important problem for psychology - the problem of the relationship between the subjective image and the external object. It destroys the mystification of this problem, which is created in psychology by the postulate of immediacy that I have repeatedly mentioned. After all, if we proceed from the assumption that external influences directly cause a subjective image in us, in our brain, then the question immediately arises of how it happens that this image appears as existing outside of us, outside of our subjectivity - in the coordinates of the external world.

Within the framework of the postulate of immediacy, this question can be answered only by allowing the process of secondary, so to speak, projection of the mental image outside. The theoretical inconsistency of such an assumption is obvious; moreover, it is in clear contradiction with the facts, which indicate that the mental image from the very beginning is already “related” to reality external to the brain of the subject and that it is not projected into the external world, but rather is scooped out of it. Of course, when I talk about "scooping out" it is nothing more than a metaphor. It, however, expresses a real process accessible to scientific research - the process of appropriation by the subject of the objective world in its ideal form, in the form of conscious reflection.

This process initially arises in the same system of objective relations in which the transition of the objective content of activity into its product occurs. But in order for this process to be realized, it is not enough that the product of activity, having absorbed it into itself, appears before the subject with its material properties; such a transformation must occur, as a result of which he could act as a cognizable subject, i.e. ideally. This transformation occurs through the functioning of language, which is a product and means of communication between participants in production. Language carries in its meanings (concepts) one or another objective content, but content that is completely freed from its materiality. Thus, food is, of course, a material object, but the meaning of the word “food” does not contain a single gram of food substance. At the same time, language itself also has its own material existence, its own matter; However, language, taken in relation to the signified reality, is only a form of its existence, like those material brain processes of individuals that realize its awareness.

So, individual consciousness as a specifically human form of subjective reflection of objective reality can only be understood as a product of those relationships and mediations that arise during the formation and development of society. Outside the system of these relations (and outside social consciousness), the existence of the individual psyche in the form of a conscious reflection, conscious images is impossible.

For psychology, a clear understanding of this is all the more important because it has not yet completely abandoned naive anthropologism in explaining the phenomena of consciousness. Even the activity approach to the psychological study of the phenomena of consciousness allows us to understand them only under the inapplicable condition that human activity itself is considered as a process included in a system of relations that carries out his social existence, which is the way of his existence also as a natural, bodily being. .

Of course, the indicated conditions and relationships that give rise to human consciousness characterize it only at the earliest stages. Subsequently, in connection with the development of material production and communication, the separation and then isolation of spiritual production and the ongoing technicalization of language, people’s consciousness is freed from direct connection with their direct practical work activity. The circle of the conscious is expanding more and more, so that consciousness becomes a universal, although not the only, form of mental reflection in a person. It undergoes a number of radical changes.

Initial consciousness exists only in the form of a mental image that reveals the world around it to the subject, while activity still remains practical, external. At a later stage, activity also becomes an object of consciousness: the actions of other people, and through them, the subject’s own actions, are realized. Now they communicate using gestures or vocal speech. This is a prerequisite for the generation of internal actions and operations taking place in the mind, on the “plane of consciousness.” Consciousness - the image also becomes consciousness - activity. It is in this fullness that consciousness begins to seem emancipated from external, sensory-practical activity and, moreover, to control it.

Another major change that consciousness undergoes in the course of historical development is the destruction of the initial unity of the consciousness of the work collective and the consciousness of the individuals forming it. This occurs due to the fact that a wide range of phenomena becomes conscious, including also phenomena belonging to the sphere of such relationships between individuals that constitute something special in the life of each of them. At the same time, the class stratification of society leads to the fact that people find themselves in unequal, opposed relationships to the means of production and the social product; Accordingly, their consciousness experiences the influence of this dissimilarity, this opposition. At the same time, ideological ideas are developed that are included in the process of awareness by specific individuals of their real life relationships.

A most complex picture of internal connections, interweavings and mutual transitions arises, generated by the development of internal contradictions, which appear in their abstract form even when analyzing the simplest relationships that characterize the system of human activity. At first glance, immersing research in this complex picture may seem to lead away from the specific tasks of the psychological study of consciousness, towards the replacement of psychology with sociology. But this is not true at all. On the contrary, the psychological features of individual consciousness can only be understood through their connections with the social relations in which the individual is involved.

A.N. Leontiev. "ACTIVITY. CONSCIOUSNESS. PERSONALITY."

SELF-TEST QUESTIONS

1. What is an activity?

Activity is the process of a person’s conscious and purposeful change of the world and himself.

3. How are activities and needs related?

Human activity is carried out to satisfy his needs.

A need is a person’s experienced and perceived need for what is necessary to maintain his body and develop his personality. There are three types of needs: natural, social and ideal.

4. What is the motive of activity? How is a motive different from a goal? What is the role of motives in human activity?

Motive is why a person acts, and purpose is what a person acts for. The same activity can be caused by different motives. For example, students read, that is, they perform the same activity. But one student can read, feeling the need for knowledge. The other is out of a desire to please parents. The third is driven by the desire to get a good grade. The fourth wants to assert himself. At the same time, the same motive can lead to different types of activity. For example, trying to assert himself in his team, a student can prove himself in educational, sports, and social activities.

5. Define the need. Name the main groups of human needs and give specific examples.

A need is a person’s experienced and perceived need for what is necessary to maintain his body and develop his personality.

In modern science, various classifications of needs are used. In the most general form, they can be combined into three groups: natural, social and ideal.

Natural needs. In another way they can be called innate, biological, physiological, organic, natural. These are human needs for everything that is necessary for his existence, development and reproduction. Natural ones include, for example, human needs for food, air, water, housing, clothing, sleep, rest, etc.

Social needs. They are determined by a person’s membership in society. Social needs are considered to be human needs for work, creation, creativity, social activity, communication with other people, recognition, achievements, i.e. in everything that is a product of social life.

Ideal needs. They are otherwise called spiritual or cultural. These are a person’s needs for everything that is necessary for his spiritual development. The ideal includes, for example, the need for self-expression, the creation and development of cultural values, the need for a person to understand the world around him and his place in it, the meaning of his existence.

6. What can be attributed to the results (products) of human activity?

The products of human activity include material and spiritual benefits, forms of communication between people, social conditions and relationships, as well as the abilities, skills, and knowledge of the person himself.

7. Name the types of human activities. Explain their diversity using specific examples.

Based on various reasons, different types of activities are distinguished.

Depending on the characteristics of a person’s relationship to the world around him, activities are divided into practical and spiritual. Practical activities are aimed at transforming real objects of nature and society. Spiritual activity is associated with changing people's consciousness.

When human activity is correlated with the course of history, with social progress, then a progressive or reactionary orientation of activity is distinguished, as well as creative or destructive. Based on the material studied in the history course, you can give examples of events in which these types of activities were manifested.

Depending on the compliance of the activity with existing general cultural values ​​and social norms, legal and illegal, moral and immoral activities are determined.

In connection with social forms of bringing people together for the purpose of carrying out activities, collective, mass, and individual activities are distinguished.

Depending on the presence or absence of novelty of goals, results of activity, methods of its implementation, a distinction is made between monotonous, template, monotonous activity, which is carried out strictly according to rules and instructions, the new in such activity is reduced to a minimum, and most often completely absent, and innovative, inventive activity , creative.

Depending on the social spheres in which activities take place, economic, political, social activities, etc. are distinguished. In addition, in each sphere of social life, certain types of human activity characteristic of it are distinguished. For example, the economic sphere is characterized by production and consumption activities. Political activities are characterized by state, military, and international activities. For the spiritual sphere of society's life - scientific, educational, leisure.

8. How are activity and consciousness related?

Any sensory image of an object, any sensation or idea, having a certain meaning and meaning, becomes part of consciousness. On the other hand, a number of sensations and experiences of a person are beyond the scope of consciousness. They lead to little-conscious, impulsive actions, which were mentioned earlier, and this affects human activity, sometimes distorting its results.

Activity, in turn, contributes to changes in human consciousness and its development. Consciousness is formed by activity in order to at the same time influence this activity, determine and regulate it. By practically implementing their creative ideas born in their consciousness, people transform nature, society and themselves. In this sense, human consciousness not only reflects the objective world, but also creates it. Having absorbed historical experience, knowledge and methods of thinking, having acquired certain skills and abilities, a person masters reality. At the same time, he sets goals, creates projects for future tools, and consciously regulates his activities.

TASKS

1. In Kamchatka, famous for its active volcanoes, special technologies for processing volcanic raw materials are being introduced. This work began with a special decision of the governor. Experts have determined that the production of silicates from volcanic rock is a very profitable business that does not require significant investment. According to their calculations, the work of one plant can bring 40 million rubles to the regional budget and 50 million rubles to the state budget. Consider this information from the perspective of the topic studied: determine what types of human activity were manifested in the events described, name the subjects and objects of activity in each case, and trace the connection between consciousness and activity in this example.

Type of activity - labor, material activity, subjects - workers, specialists, objects - volcanic raw materials, business profit. The connection between consciousness and activity - first we are aware of the event, make a report about it (profitability calculations), then we begin to act (introduce technologies).

2. Determine whether practical or spiritual activity includes: a) cognitive activity; b) social reforms; c) production of essential goods.

a) cognitive activity refers to spiritual activity, because cognition is aimed at obtaining knowledge, and knowledge is ideal, it cannot be seen or touched;

b) social reforms will relate to practical activities, because this type of activity is aimed at transforming society;

c) the production of essential goods will be related to practical activities, because the object in this case will be nature, and the result will be material wealth.

3. Name the actions that make up the activities of a doctor, farmer, scientist.

A doctor primarily works with people: he sees them, draws conclusions based on test results, and, if necessary, treats them. Farmer: studies the soil in order to know what will grow on it and whether it needs to be fertilized, cultivates it, plants everything that is necessary on it, cares for the plants, and harvests. Scientist: engages in science, collects and tests materials in any scientific field, studies their properties, tries to improve and discover something new, conducts experiments, etc.

4. A. N. Leontyev wrote: “Activity is richer, truer than the consciousness that precedes it.” Explain this idea.

Consciousness allows a person to think, but not every thought leads to action, which means the activity is richer and more genuine.

V. V. DAVYDOV, V. P. ZINCHENKO, N. F. TALYZINA

The category of activity is generally accepted in Soviet psychology. Further development of the activity approach requires awareness of the path traveled, analysis of existing points of view on the functions of the category of activity in the system of psychological science, and identification of problems that should form a program of research work for Soviet psychologists.

The dialectical-materialist interpretation of activity is associated primarily with the affirmation of its objective nature.

Principle objectivity forms the core of the psychological theory of activity of A. N. Leontiev and his followers. In this case, the object is understood not as an object that exists in itself and affects the subject, but as “that to which the act is directed... i.e., as something to which a living being relates, as subject of his activity- it makes no difference whether the activity is external or internal."

And further: “The object of activity appears in two ways: primarily - in its independent existence, as subordinating and transforming the activity of the subject, secondly - as an image of the object, as a product of the mental reflection of its properties, which is realized as a result of the activity of the subject and cannot be realized otherwise.”

Thus, human activity is characterized not only by objectivity, but also subjectivity: the activity of the subject is always aimed at transforming an object that can satisfy a certain need. Activity contains the unity of such opposite principles as object and subject. To understand their mutual transitions, it is necessary to follow the dynamics of the completion of an act of activity.

A. N. Leontyev pointed out that the prerequisite, internal condition and at the same time the regulator of specific activity is need, which “pushes” the subject to search movements that were not initially aimed at a specific object. Here the plasticity of activity is manifested - its assimilation to the properties of objects independent of it. In the process of assimilation, the need “gropes” for its object and the need becomes objectified.

Further, the activity of the subject is no longer directed by the object itself, but by its way. The generation of an image is considered not as a one-sided process of influence of an object on a subject, but as a two-sided one. The image “...is the result of a counter “imitative” process, which carries out, as it were, testing it.”

Thus, the subject's practical contacts with the outside world, and not the simple influence of the latter, give rise to a mental reflection in the subject. The belonging of images to the subject means their dependence on the needs of the subject. The definition of a subjective image includes human life and practice. At the same time, a movement occurs in the opposite direction: the activity of the subject passes into the “resting property” of its objective product.

These features of activity serve as the basis for overcoming

both idealistic and mechanistic concepts in psychology. The subject and object act as components of an integral system, within which they acquire their inherent systemic qualities.

This understanding of the category of activity made it possible to overcome the “postulate of immediacy” that is characteristic of representatives of many psychological directions. According to this postulate, the state of the subject is determined directly by objects according to the following scheme: “... the impact on the receiving systems of the subject → the emerging response - objective and subjective - phenomena caused by this impact." With this understanding, the subject acts as a reactive being, completely subordinate to the influences of the environment.

With the activity approach, the subject actively interacts with the object, “meets” it biasedly and selectively. In other words, the principle of reactivity is opposed to the principle of subject activity. This principle makes it possible to overcome the approach to man as a being merely adapting to the surrounding conditions, and to contrast this approach with the transformative, creative nature of human activity.

The category of activity acts in psychology in two functions: as an explanatory principle and as a subject of research. The study of the foundations of the first function was started by L. S. Vygotsky and S. L. Rubinstein, and later continued by A. N. Leontiev, A. R. Luria and others. The study of activity as a special subject was also started by L. S. Vygotsky and others, but was carried out especially intensively for many years by A. N. Leontiev and his followers.

At the same time, A. N. Leontiev emphasized that “for Marx, activity in its original and basic form is sensually practical activity in which people come into practical contact with objects of the surrounding world, experience their resistance and influence them, submitting to them.” objective properties." The main method of studying the process of emergence and development of mental reflection was the analysis of sensory and practical activity, mediating the connection of the subject with the real world. The use of this method confirmed the validity of L. S. Vygotsky’s thesis that to explain consciousness it is necessary to go beyond its limits.

Objective activity as a subject of psychological science was first identified by S. L. Rubinstein. Subsequently, A. N. Leontiev developed this approach to the subject of psychology. He believed that the holistic activity of the subject as an organic system in all its forms and types, in their mutual transitions and transformations is the subject of psychology. Psychological analysis of activity does not consist in isolating mental elements from it for further study, but in isolating such units “which carry mental reflection in its inseparability from the moments of human activity that generate it and are mediated by it.”

A. N. Leontyev wrote that the task is to build “a consistent system of psychology as a specific science about the generation, functioning and structure of the mental reflection of reality, which mediates the life of the individual.” Since mental reflection is considered as generated in the process of development of sensory-practical activity, it cannot be understood outside the integral system of activity.

It is fundamentally important that the genetically initial form for all types of activity, including “internal” types, is external objective activity. Internal activity is secondary; it is formed in the process of internalization of external objective activity. This transition occurs through a system of transformations along several lines. In this regard, two important points need to be noted.

Firstly, in the process of internalization there is a transition not only from the external to the internal plane, but also a transition from collective activity to individual activity (collective activity occurs both in the form of joint practical activity and in the form of verbal communication).

Secondly, interiorization does not consist in moving external activity into the internal plane of consciousness that precedes it, but in the formation of this plane itself.

There are constant mutual transitions between external and internal activities: both the process of internalization and the process of exteriorization take place. These mutual transitions are possible because both of these forms have, in principle, a single general structure. A. N. Leontiev considered the discovery of the common structure of these forms of human activity to be “one of the most important discoveries of modern psychological science.” At the same time, it is necessary to keep in mind that the fundamental commonality of the structure of external and internal activity as an organic system is associated primarily with their genetic relationship, and not only and not so much with some formal coincidence of their structures.

While noting the special significance for Soviet psychology of the position that external and internal activities have a genetic unity, it should at the same time emphasize the undeveloped nature of many issues relating to the specific features of this unity. Thus, A. N. Leontiev’s position on this problem is connected with the ideas of L. S. Vygotsky, according to which the internal activity of an individual arises on the basis of the collective activity of people. But there is still no significant amount of facts that reveal the uniqueness of the emergence of individual activity on the basis of collective activity.

Let us turn to the general structure of activity, which is most fully represented in the works of A. N. Leontiev (it became a special subject of psychological research in his scientific school). The activity has the following components: need ↔ motive ↔ target ↔ conditions achieving the goal ( unity goals and conditions represents task) and related to them activity ↔action ↔ operations.

The category of holistic activity is correlated with the concept of need and motive, with the definition of their substantive content. Therefore, we can talk about a person’s specific activity only when, in relation to any of his activities, precisely its needs and motives are highlighted with fairly clear characteristics of their content. And vice versa, if we are talking about a need and the motives that specify it when determining their substantive content, then only these psychological formations correspond to one or another activity aimed at satisfying them (naturally, the term “activity” simply cannot be used in psychology in any other sense) .

This or that motive prompts a person to set a task, to identify a goal that, when presented in certain conditions, requires the performance of an action aimed at creating or obtaining an object that satisfies the motive and need. The nature of the action performed, aimed at solving a problem, is determined by its purpose, while the conditions of the problem determine the operations necessary for the solution.

A. N. Leontyev paid special attention to the change and transformation of the very structure of activity as an integral system. Thus, an activity can lose its motive and turn into an action, and an action, when the goal changes, can turn into an operation. The motive of some activity can transfer to the goal of the action, as a result of which the latter turns into some integral activity. The following mutual transformations constantly occur: activity ↔ action ↔ operation and motive ↔ goal ↔ conditions. The mobility of the components of an activity is also expressed in the fact that each of them can become fractional or, conversely, include previously relatively independent units (for example, an action can be fragmented into a number of sequential actions with the corresponding division of a certain goal into subgoals).

What is fundamentally important is that, in accordance with the transformation of the components of activity, there is a fragmentation or combination of orienting

their images. Consequently, while maintaining the integrity of any activity, differentiation and integration of its components and associated images occurs.

The general characteristics of the structure of activity and the intertransformations of its components and the associated plane of reflection are, in our opinion, of great interest for theoretical psychology. This can serve as the basis for further thorough research of specific types and types of activities and those psychological formations that ensure their construction and functioning.

Much work remains to be done to clarify the overall structure of activities. In this regard, a number of difficult problems arise concerning the patterns of interconversion and transformation of the components of activity, the patterns of transition from one activity to another. Particularly acute is the problem of methods for studying the structure of activity, the interconversion and transformation of its components, and methods for determining their substantive content.

With the introduction of objective activity itself into the subject of psychology, the question of units of psychological analysis is raised in a new way. This question was once posed by L. S. Vygotsky. “By unit we mean,” wrote L. S. Vygotsky, “a product of analysis that, unlike elements, has all the basic properties inherent in the whole, and which are further indecomposable living parts of this unity... Psychology that wants to study complex unities needs to understand this. It must replace the methods of decomposition into elements by the method of analysis, dividing into units."

This means that the analysis of activity must be carried out in units that preserve all its specific features. Such a unit is action. It is action, building any activity, that contains all its specific characteristics.

Action as a unit of analysis of activity was defined in the works of A. N. Leontiev (see, for example,) and S. L. Rubinstein, who, justifying the choice of such a unit, wrote that in order to understand diverse mental phenomena in their essential internal relationships “ You must first of all find that “cell” or “cell” in which you can reveal the rudiments of all the elements of psychology in their unity.” It is necessary to find such a “psychophysical unity,” he continues, “which contains the main aspects of the psyche in their real relationships, conditioned by specific material conditions and the relationship of the individual with the world around him. Such a cell is any action, as a unit of its activity.” Being an act of practical and theoretical activity, “action as a “unit” of activity, taken in its psychological content, is an act that proceeds from certain motives and is directed towards a specific goal, taking into account the conditions in which this goal is achieved, the action acts as a solution to the problem at hand. task before the individual."

It is necessary to highlight a number of other requirements for the unit of analysis. Thus, this unit should not only express the internal unity of mental processes, but also make it possible to study the relationship of a separate process to the entire life of consciousness as a whole and to its most important functions. In addition, the unit of analysis as a genetically original “cell” must have a real, sensory-perceivable form. In this regard, sensory-objective action can act as a genetically initial unit of analysis in psychology.

Without touching on other problems associated with units of analysis in psychology, we note that the problem under consideration is directly related to the question of psychological language, to the question of systematics in psychology. The implementation of the activity approach involves the construction of the entire edifice of psychological science in the language of theory

activities. In this regard, it is important to point out a number of trends in Soviet psychology that, in our opinion, hinder such a construction.

Firstly, there is still a tendency to use the language of functionalist psychology with the replacement of the word “function” with the word “activity”, although not a single function in itself can be either activity or action as the unity in which the main points of the psyche are contained in their real relationships.

Secondly, the admissibility of the coexistence of two languages ​​in psychology is recognized. This tendency clearly appeared in the works of S. L. Rubinstein. When approaching the same psychological reality, he proposed conducting analysis both in the language of activity and in the language of processes. “... Thinking is considered as an activity when a person’s motives are taken into account, thinking appears in a procedural sense when they study... those processes of analysis, synthesis, generalization through which mental problems are resolved.”

Thirdly, there is a process of introducing into psychology the concepts of a number of other sciences, not always even adjacent to it.

Thus, we believe that the problem of language and the problem of units of analysis behind it cannot be underestimated, since behind them lies the question of understanding the subject of psychological knowledge.

As mentioned above, the category of objective activity performs two functions in psychology: as an explanatory principle and as a subject of research. In this regard, E. G. Yudin rightly notes that the transition from using the category of activity as an explanatory principle to its use as a subject of study is far from a trivial issue. When performing the first function, the category of activity serves as the source and basis of explanation. “When it begins to be considered as a subject of objective scientific study, then within the framework of this subject, in turn, there must be some kind of explanatory principle, which this time will explain the activity itself.”

When considering the subject of psychological science, it is necessary to take into account a number of circumstances. Firstly, A. N. Leontiev noted that objective activity is not all, not completely included in the actual subject of psychological science. Moreover, A. N. Leontyev directly says that psychology is the science of the generation, functioning and structure of mental reflection. At first glance, these two approaches to the subject of psychology appear to be contradictory. In fact, there is no contradiction here, although clarification is required.

The fact is that the dialectical-materialist understanding of mental reflection does not allow it to be studied outside the system of integral activity. The psychologist must deal with this holistic system - it is she who must be an “open book” for him. And only by turning its pages can he find out how psychic reflection is generated and how it functions.

In this regard, P. Ya. Galperin’s approach to the subject of psychology deserves special attention, who believes that the actual subject of psychology is the indicative part of objective activity. Facts accumulated in modern science give reason to believe that the very generation of mental reflection occurs when the subject solves problems under conditions that require delaying the execution of the action and “playing it out”, in terms of reflection, i.e., performing a kind of orienting activity.

P. Ya. Galperin's approach to this problem shows that the category of activity as an explanatory principle can fulfill its function only if its integral system structure is taken into account, without which its indicative part cannot be adequately studied.

Recently, in Soviet psychology the question of expanding its categorical base has been raised. Thus, B.F. Lomov believes that when building the foundations of psychology, along with the category of activity, it is necessary to use

and other categories, including reflection and communication. In addition, it is proposed to introduce a systematic approach to psychological research. However, according to the theory of A. N. Leontiev, all these categories are implicitly contained in the category of activity.

As shown above, activity is systemic by its very nature. Therefore, its adequate study is possible only with a systematic approach to it, with the analysis of such units that have systemic qualities. An image (mental reflection) always occupies an essential place in the system of activity; in isolation from it it is impossible to understand either its genesis or its functioning. As for communication, it appears in activity in several functions. Thus, it constitutes a transitional form of activity on the path of its transformation from collective to individual. Communication is organically included in collective activity. Finally, it itself is the most important type of human activity.

Thus, all of these categories can be derived from objective activity as the original psychological category.

The analysis shows that the activity approach in psychology, developed by A. N. Leontyev, radically changes the idea of ​​the subject of psychological science, its method, and thereby the units of psychological analysis, its language.

At the same time, in the works of Aleksey Nikolaevich only initial fundamental provisions are formulated, the implementation of which in a specific psychological sense requires a number of clarifications. A special task is to correlate the views of A. N. Leontiev on the place of the category of activity in psychology with the position of L. S. Vygotsky, S. L. Rubinstein, P. Ya. Galperin, as well as a number of other psychologists who contributed to the development of the activity approach in Soviet psychology.

1. Bernshtein N. A. Essays on the physiology of movements and physiology of activity. - M., 1966.

2. Vygotsky L. S.Collection soch., vol. 2, M., 1982.

3. Galperin P. Ya.Introduction to Psychology. - M., 1976.

4. Davydov V.V.The category of activity and mental reflection in the theory of A. N. Leontiev. - Bulletin Mosk. un-ta. Series 14. Psychology, 1979, No. 4, p. 25-41.

5. Davydov V.V., Radzikhovsky L.A. The theory of L. S. Vygotsky and the activity approach in psychology. - Questions of Psychology, 1980, No. 6; 1981, No. 1, p. 48-59.

6. Zinchenko V. P.Ideas of L. S. Vygotsky about units of analysis of the psyche. - Psychological Journal, 1981, vol. 2, no. 2, p. 118-133.

7. Leontyev A. N.On some psychological issues of the consciousness of teaching. - Soviet Pedagogy, 1946, No. 1-2.

8. Leontyev A. N.Problems of mental development. 4th ed., M., 1981.

9. Leontyev A. N.Activity. Consciousness. Personality. - M., 1975.

10. Lomov B.F.Category of communication and activity in psychology. - Questions of Philosophy, 1979, No. 8.

11. Rubinshtein S. L.Problems of psychology in the works of K. Marx. - Psychotechnics, 1934, No. 7.

12. Rubinshtein S. L.Fundamentals of general psychology. - M., 1946.

13. Rubinshtein S. L.Being and consciousness. - M., 1957.

14. Talyzina N. F. Managing the process of knowledge acquisition. - M., 1975.

14. Yudin E. G. The concept of activity as a methodological problem. - Ergonomics. Proceedings of VNIITE, 1976, No. 10, p. 81-88.

Received by the editor 04. II.1982

A. N. Leontiev and S. L. Rubinstein are the creators 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, dedicated to the cultural-historical approach. This theory reveals the term “activity” and other related concepts.

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 with 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 to create the concept.

The main thesis of A. N. Leontiev’s theory of activity briefly sounds like this: it is not consciousness that shapes activity, but activity that shapes 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 of consciousness and activity. This means that the human psyche is formed during activity and in the process of work, and it manifests itself in them. Scientists have 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 force.

So, according to A. N. Leontiev, “activity - consciousness of the individual” is the main logical relationship of the entire concept.

Basic psychological phenomena of the activity theory 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 one 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 that is not intended for human introspection. It can only manifest itself through a system of subjective relations, in particular, through the activities of the individual, during which he manages to develop.

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

Personality in the theory of activity of A. N. Leontiev is considered in unity with action, work, motive, operation, need and emotions.

The concept of activity of A. N. Leontyev and S. L. Rubinstein is a whole system that includes methodological and theoretical principles that allow the study of human psychological phenomena. The concept of activity by A. N. Leontyev 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 the psychology of the 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 Alexey Nikolaevich together with representatives of the Kharkov psychological school, who identified a common structure affecting external and internal activities.

The main 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 Aleksey Nikolaevich, and Sergey Leonidovich Rubinstein defined activity as a set of any actions that are aimed at achieving set goals. According to A. N. Leontyev, activity in the consciousness of the individual plays a paramount 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 this concept complete.

Activity structure:

This scheme is valid when reading both from top to bottom and vice versa.

There are two forms of activity:

• external;
• internal.

External activities

External activity includes various forms that are expressed in objective and practical activity. With this type, there is an interaction between subjects and objects, the latter being openly presented for external observation. Examples of this form of activity are:

• the work of mechanics using tools - this can be driving nails with a hammer or tightening bolts with a screwdriver;
• production of material objects by specialists on machines;
• children's games that require extraneous things;
• cleaning the premises: sweeping floors with a broom, wiping windows with a rag, manipulating pieces of 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 type are:

• solution of a mathematical problem by a scientist using mental activity inaccessible to the eye;
• the actor’s internal work on the role, which includes thinking, worrying, anxiety, etc.;
• the process of creating a work by poets or writers;
• coming up with a script for a school play;
• mental guessing of a riddle by a child;
• emotions evoked in a person when watching a touching film or listening to soulful music.

Motive

The general psychological theory of activity by A. N. Leontyev and S. L. Rubinstein defines a 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, a motive is the engine of any existing activity, that is, it is a push that brings a 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 activity A.N. Leontyev and S.L. Rubinstein has two transcripts:

1. Need is a kind of “internal condition”, which is a mandatory prerequisite for any activity performed by the subject. But Aleksey Nikolaevich points out that this type of need is not capable of causing directed activity in any case, because its main goal becomes orientation-research activity, which, as a rule, is aimed at searching for such objects that would be able to save a person from what he is experiencing desires. Sergei Leonidovich adds that this concept is a “virtual need”, which is expressed only within oneself, so a person experiences it in his state or feeling of “incompleteness”.
2. 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 an “actual need,” that is, the need for a specific thing at a certain point in time.

"Objectified" need

This concept can be traced using the example of a newly born gosling, which has not yet encountered any specific object, but its properties are already recorded in the mind of the chick - they were passed on to it from its mother in the most general form at the genetic level, so it does not have a desire follow any thing that appears before his eyes at the moment of hatching from the egg. This happens only during the meeting of the 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's subconscious mind fits the scheme of a genetically fixed approximate image, so it is able to satisfy the need of the gosling. This is how a given object that fits the required characteristics is imprinted 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 follow its “objectified” need everywhere.

Thus, Aleksey 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, which 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 towards which a person implements certain activities in the form of appropriate actions that are prompted by the subject’s motive.

Differences between purpose and motive

Alexey Nikolaevich introduces the concept of “goal” as a desired result that arises in the process of a person planning any activity. He emphasizes that motive is different from this term because it is what something is done 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 motive and goal, so they are dependent on each other.

A person always understands what the purpose of the actions he performs or contemplates is, that is, his task is conscious. It turns out that a person always knows exactly what he is going to do. Example: applying to a 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 be aware of the main reasons for performing any activity. Example: an applicant very much wants to apply to a particular institute - he explains this by the fact that the profile of this educational institution coincides with his interests and desired future profession, in fact, the main reason for choosing this university is the desire to be close to the girl he loves, who studies at this university.

Emotions

Analysis of the emotional life of the subject 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 (a motive can also be considered the subject of emotions, because on a subconscious level it is defined as a subjective form of an existing goal, behind which it is internally manifested in the individual’s psyche).

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