Irina A. Mironenko

Background. In the context of the current globalization of culture and civilization, international science has become global. Formation of a global science, able to comprehend the emerging global world, is impossible without the full integration of “local” scientific traditions and systems of social and humanitarian knowledge, which are new to the Western-centered mainstream. This situation challenges “local” psychological schools, and at the same time opens up new perspectives for their development. A prerequisite for integration is overcoming language barriers. For Russian psychology, the language factor is of special significance, because the conceptual apparatus here has formed based on the Russian language, and translating Russian texts into foreign languages requires not only language skills but also hermeneutics in relation to the conceptual apparatus.

Objective. Of special difficulty is the translation of the concept of “субъект” (Subjekt), which is central to the Russian psychological tradition. Like the concept of “Personality,” it relates to the sphere of integral aspects and manifestations of human existence. The question of how these two concepts relate, remains acutely debatable, despite the fact that the Russian scientific community has already spent considerable efforts on the methodological elaboration of each of them. This makes it difficult for scientists to communicate and impedes translating scientific texts. This article concentrates on the problem of translating the concept oi“Subjekt’.’

Conclusion. Difficulties encountered by foreign colleagues are analyzed; the different interpretations of the concept in contemporary Russian psychology are highlighted. A solution to the problem of translation of the concept is proposed.

This article begins by discussing the origins of the methodological crisis in psychology. In the literature the idea of a permanent methodological crisis in psychology, lasting since the 1890s, dominates. We contest this view and argue that the contemporary methodological problems in psychology should be considered within the context of the novel and larger crisis challenging all socio-humanitarian knowledge in the face of the transformations in social reality in recent decades. The nature of these transformations and their implications for the theory and methodology of the socio-humanitarian sciences are analyzed by drawing on the sociological literature, which is more sensitive to changes in social life than is psychology.

Prominent sociologists argue that the “old” theories and interpretations of the “social” are no longer relevant in the new, highly complex, and globally unstable reality; this new reality has largely transformed the dimensions of human beings’ existence. Meanwhile psychology still tends to comprehend the universal nature of the human. This position undermines the relevance of both psychology’s theoretical models and the practical implications derived from these methodological assumptions.

We argue for revision of the perennial psychological problem of the biology-culture interaction in human nature. To resolve the contemporary methodological crisis in psychology, a shift is needed from theories of universal and immutable human nature to the idea of the human as an infinitely changing creature. Because culture is, primarily, the ability to change, wherein the speed and extent of changes are unique for humans, distinguishing them from other living beings.

Contemporary Russian psychology faces an uphill battle in joining the international mainstream after decades of isolation. Among Russian psychologists today, we can see traces of the “globalist” (integrative) and “counter-globalist” (isolationist) tendencies that first manifested during the Soviet period. At that time, Russian psychology was shaped as a mono-methodological trend; it addressed fundamental theoretical problems, was based on Marxist philosophy and was oriented to reflect the standards of the natural sciences. In the post-Soviet period, fundamental social changes shifted the development of psychology as a science and different standards were adopted. Contemporary Russian psychology is substantially diversified. When searching for “the optimum level of integration” with global peers, it is necessary to take into account the theoretical and methodological orientations of the scientists, as their motives and constraints with respect to integration can be substantially different. Here we explain in detail how the different theoretical understandings and predilections of Russian psychologists determine their interests, ideals and constraints with respect to integration with the mainstream.

Russian psychology has brought into the world science at least two great ideas: the conditioned reflex (Pavlov) and the zone of proximal development (Vygotsky). These concepts were formulated before “iron curtain” fell. Since then Russian science dropped out from the view of western colleagues for decades. Now it is challenged to re-join international mainstream. Are we in a position to contribute? A key concept for Russian psychology is personality impact on psycho-physiological functions and causal approach to self-determination. The concept of selfdetermination appeared in Western theories in 1980-es and since then it has been developed in the context of teleological humanitarian approach. In Russian science the concept of self-determination dates back to 1934, when it was defined by Rubinstein as “sub’ekt”. Self-determination of ontogenesis of psychophysiological functions resulting from confluence of ontogenesis and social development was explicated by Russian scientists whose theoretical reasoning and empirical results are compared to Western counterparts.

Russian psychology which had been cut off from the world science for the greater part of the 20th century is now facing a challenge to join the international mainstream. To facilitate the integration of Russian psychology into the international mainstream, a certain hermeneutics is needed, applied to the explicit methodology and terminology Russian scientists used, as well as to the system of implicit beliefs and assumptions concerning human nature "embedded" into the Russian psychology. The latter is compared to its counterparts in major Western psychological theories.