In memory of professor Oleg K. Tikhomirov

Solovieva, Yu. Meritorious Autonomous University of Puebla, Mexico Autonomous University of Tlaxcala, Tlaxcala, Mexico Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia

Quintanar Rojas, Luis Autonomous University of Tlaxcala, Tlaxcala, Mexico

We recall the personality andscientific achievements of Professor Oleg Konstantinovich Tikhomirov, wholectured for six months in Mexico. During this period he developed atheoretical basis for psychology at the Autonomous University of Puebla (UAP).In his academic work at UAP, he established historical-cultural foundations forpsychology’s activity theories (ATs), which since his demise have beendistributed throughout Mexico and Latin America. Beyond his effect on thecultural traditions of psychology, Prof. Tikhomirov has had an abiding impacton the ways of thinking and has created an ‘image for the world’ (to use anexpression coined by A.N. Leontiev).

We should begin by explaining howTikhomirov could in such a short timespan implement his work at Puebla. Thisexplanation might help the reader grasp the depth of our respect for OlegKonstantinovich. However, prior to that step, we should study the professor’srelationship with the article’s authors, Luis Quintanar Rojas and his wifeYulia Solovieva. Luis Quintanar, a participant in the Master Degree program inPsychobiology at the Faculty of Psychology, National Autonomous University ofMexico, sought to continue his higher education by studying A.R. Luria’sconcepts of neuropsychology.

Consequently, he applied to the SovietUnion in 1988 and was granted a scholarship to Moscow State University (MSU).During Quintanar’s four years in the Soviet capital, Prof. Tsvetkova supervisedhis Ph.D. dissertation. After defending his doctoral tract, Quintanar returnedto Mexico in 1992. There he secured employment at UAP and also established aMaster’s Program (MP) in Neuropsychological Diagnosis and Rehabilitation.Launched in August, 1994, the MP initially had only one teacher and researcher:Luis Quintanar himself. At that stage, the program had yet to employ otherteachers or representatives of historical-cultural psychology (HCP) or ofneuropsychology. As a result, it was forced to invite teachers from otherMexican universities or from abroad. Several local researchers were asked tocollaborate in the MP’s lecturing, but none was well acquainted with HCP orwith neuropsychology. Quintanar had always planned for the program to embracegraduate students of psychology seeking an HCP orientation in general, andLuria’s approach in particular. But the only way to attain this objective wasto seek financial aid from Mexico’s National Counsel of Science and Technology(CONACYT). Such assistance would also attract professors from MSU to lecture onneuropsychological and psychological concepts.

The neuropsychological-orientedprogram started receiving CONACYT support in 1995, with the financial aid usedby local students (who applied for government scholarships), and by foreignteachers and researchers. The first priority was to deal with topics such asneuropsychology, with Prof. L.S. Tsvetkova invited to Mexico. She arrived atPuebla with her husband in 1994 and stayed until 1996.

(O.K. Tikhomirov, Luis Quintanar)

Tsvetkova was primarily invited due tothe close scientific bond she had developed with Quintanar during his doctoralstudies at MSU.

The latter sought her advice onsubjects beyond the MP, including the invitation from MSU of specialists ingeneral and developmental psychology. So it happened that Prof. Tsvetkovaadvised Quintanar to invite Prof. O.K. Tikhomirov to lecture in generalpsychology, and Prof. V.Ya Liaudis to teach both pedagogical and developmentaltopics. Oleg Konstantinovich had served as the ‘methodological supervisor’ forQuintanar’s Ph.D. dissertation at MSU.

The following two photographs showQuintanar defending his Ph.D. dissertation at MSU on June 5, 1992.

It is important to relate thatCONACYT’s financial support was secured for air tickets and salary alone. Inthe case of L.S. Tsvetkova, it authorized a two-year salary, while forTikhomirov, it only authorized a six-month salary (such types of financialsupport are at present even more difficult to attain).

In spite of the reduced socialbenefits, Oleg Konstantinovich agreed to lecture at UAP. He remained there forthe timespan running from August 1994 through February 1995. Since CONACYT didnot deal with residence-related outlays, he had to dwell in a flat rented bythe UAP Faculty of Psychology for Tsvetkova. However, the three-room apartmentcontained adequate space for her family and for Tikhomirov.

Oleg Konstantinovich, who knew littleabout Mexico and nothing about Puebla, provided theoretical lectures to thefirst-generation MP students. The general- psychology section of his lecturescovered the basic data about HCP and ATs. As far as we know, no otherneuropsychology program contains a general-psychology section, particularlyfrom a HCP and ATs perspective.

(O.K. Tikhomirov, L.S. Tsvetkova, Luis Quintanar)

The content of Prof. Tikhomirov’slectures helped students to develop a scientific viewpoint on psychology and onits place on the frontier of natural and social sciences. Tikhomirov’s lecturesdealt with the history of psychology — its development in a philosophicalcontext — and its later expansion into an independent science. His courses alsocovered psychological crises, starting in Vygotsky’s time, and the need toidentify three key factors in psychological projects: the object of study,units of analysis and methodological structure.

Students participating in the lecturescould evaluate and compare major paradigms in general psychology that hadpreviously existed separately. For instance, Oleg Konstantinovich spoke ofVygotsky’s concepts on the Superior Psychological Functions, and also on thehistorical and cultural development of the human psyche. Subsequently, hecontinued his courses with the same approach, but instead focused on otherhistorical and practical considerations. One of these was an in-depthdescription of the Kharkov Group. In his lectures on the contributions ofLeontiev’s, Galperin’s and Rubinstein’s psychological works, Tikhomirov coveredthe coincidences and differences of their variants of AT. He offered, forexample, experimental and methodological approaches used by Leontiev’s group,revealing its ideas about the origins and stages of psychic development. Hislectures also explained other problems, such as the differences between animaland human types of reflection, and Galperin’s proposal that orientation was anobject of psychological study. The students in his courses were asked toevaluate the structure of psychological activity and its functional elements(including personality development, sense of activity, and image in the world).He also covered the mechanisms of new motivations, which could sometimes appearas conscious objectives of activity.

Tikhomirov’s long-term objective wasto present the general perspective of psychological development, whilecomparing the background theories of HCP with those promoted by MSU researchers(who had devoted their lives to establishing and consolidating ATs’ concepts).He always focused on the bases of ATs vs. the so- called ‘separations anddifferences’ between theoretical ideas and those promoted by Vygotsky’sdisciples. These different views of ATs continue to influence our lives. Inrecalling Tikhomirov, we are reminded of the ‘differences’ between Vygotsky andLeontiev, Leontiev and Rubinstein (or Galperin), and the discussions about ‘whowas right and who was wrong’, and ‘who were Vygotsky’s disciples’. Oleg Konstantinovichhad a ‘positive spirit’ and maintained in his lectures historical neutralitytoward ATs.

His courses contained the essence ofATs and their relationship to HCP. Regrettably, there is neither a continuationof ATs nor of their relationship with other psychological concepts. Tikhomirovstated that no existing general-psychology textbook explains the differentpsychological concepts or defines all of their perspectives. Lack of commonsources implies lack of agreement on the terms relied on by psychologists fordefining the concepts or processes being investigated. Such an outcome is notworthy of psychology, particularly when that discipline is measured accordingto the ‘sense of morality’ appearing in Tikhomirov’s lectures.

All of Oleg Konstantinovich’s lectureswere translated simultaneously by the authors of this article: Luis Quintanarand Yulia Solovieva. The former initiated the translation procedures, but soonthereafter Solovieva felt ‘obliged’ to assume his workload. Four reasons stoodbehind that decision: Quintanar, as the MP director, teacher and researcher,lacked free time for translation; simultaneous translation from Russian toSpanish was difficult; Solovieva — after three years in Mexico without constantwork, friends or contacts — sought more regular activity; and she neverobtained any reward for the translations. Her only contact, apart from family,was with Prof. L.S. Tsvetkova. After spending a year reading the availablebooks on neuropsychology in Russian, Spanish and English, Solovieva began to assistQuintanar with Tsvetkova’s lectures. By the time Prof. Tikhomirov had arrivedat Puebla, Solovieva had improved her grasp of Spanish and her comprehension ofneuropsychology. She did this while attending Tikhomirov’s lectures alongsidethe Mexican MP students.

One time, Quintanar mistranslated theword ‘okoshko’ (diminutive for the word window) as cat (‘koshka’ is cat inRussian). This misinterpretation caused everyone to be confused and then tolaugh. Perhaps, as a result of this mistake, Solovieva was asked to help in thetranslations. From that time on, until the end of Tikhomirov’s tenure at UAP,she translated all of his courses. As a pre-step to doing so, she reviewed allthe available material on general psychology. Her first motivation was to learnthe correct translations of the terminology and the sense of his lectures. Butseveral years afterwards her motives changed and she became a psychologistherself. This epitomized Oleg Konstantinovich’s lectures, which had examinedthe constant flexibility of human motives.

It is worth noting that Solovievatranslated not only the lectures but also the students’ oral examinations. Inso doing she tried to carry out her work as perfectly as possible. Tikhomirov,for his part, always encouraged and assisted the UAP students, suggesting thatfirst “we make our statements and (then) we determine whether they make sense”.He had a wonderful sense of humor, filling his lectures with real-lifeexamples, colorful illustrations and optimistic comments (these also appearedon the students’ papers).

At this stage, we would like topresent some personal comments made by Prof. Tikhomirov’s former students inthe MP in Neuropsychology for the academic year of 1996. Most have graduatedand been awarded a Master’s Degree in Neuropsychology from UAP. They are nowworking, inter alia, as psychologists, university teachers and clinicalneuropsychologists. The first generation of the MP contained 16 students at thestart, of whom only 11 completed the two-year program (some failed to defendtheir dissertations). Listed below are some of the comments.

HumbertoTellez(Masters inNeuropsychology from UAP; lecturer at UAP; presently, serving as a teacher inthe Autonomous University of Nuevo León, Monterrey). A student of Prof.Tikhomirov, Tellez was among the ‘first generation’ to participate in the MP.

“The opportunity to listento Dr. Tikhomirov’s discourses was an incomparable experience for thefirst­generation students of the Master’s Program in NeuropsychologicalDiagnosis and Rehabilitation (offered by the) Autonomous University in Puebla’s

Faculty of Psychology. Thelectures ... were simultaneously translated by Yulia Solovieva and LuisQuintanar. All classes were rather long, with each session dedicated to aspecific theme.

The thematic schemedeveloped in each exposition by Prof. Tikhomirov was perfectly organized andincluded a precise line of scientific reasoning. Such a line gave us anopportunity to penetrate into the study of psychological processes (and create)a useful format for constant analyses. Each class could be considered a perfectscientific lecture.

We ... interacted with oneof the greatest psychologists that has lived and who (helped) construct thehistory of the Soviet Union in psychological science. His relations with uswere warm and he always exhibited a wonderful (sense of) humor.

His classes ... werepresented in the form of oral dissertations (having) great profundity. (They)promoted responses from us all; ... the form and structure of his ideas (were)always conducive to reasoning. Dr. Tikhomirov rarely moved from one place toanother during his lectures. He came into the classroom, placed his chair in acomfortable position, and put his notes in front of him alongside his watch.

I remember only oneoccasion in which he stood up and drew a scheme on the blackboard. He did not(use) images, diagrams, pictures, photographs or slide projections. Histheoretic domain was obvious for everyone (present); it was very refined.

He facilitated theoreticalanalyses of psychological processes from the perspective of the Soviet schoolof psychology, (using) references to various Soviet psychologists.

Neuropsychology needs ageneral psychological concept as a base, and Professor Tikhomirov has presented... the richness of Soviet psychology. The theoretical domain enables us toapply different concepts in clinical practice.

We were lucky ... to havebeen his students.

I would like to thank Dr.Quintanar for inviting Dr. Tikhomirov and for coordinating this Master’sProgram.”

MariaElena Navarro (Master in Neuropsychology from UAP;Ph.D. in Psychology; at present, working as a professor at the AutonomousUniversity in San Luis Potosi). She was among the Mexican teachers who tookpart in the first- and second-generation of the MP, which took place whileTikhomirov had tenure at UAP. In his lectures, given at Puebla UniversityHospital, Oleg Konstantinovich dealt with general psychology and HCP. Quintanarand other Mexican researchers participated in these courses.

“As a human being he wasaccessible, dedicated to his academic work and prudent in all his expressions.His lectures helped me (grasp) the object of study in social psychology and theprocess of learning. His courses were important and the basis for my academicpreparations. (They enabled me) to obtain knowledge from (a wise person) ‘firsthand’.

I consider that hispresence for students and teachers (alike) was a rich experience ... that couldnot be repeated or reproduced. I am grateful for this opportunity.”

VicenteArturo López Cortés (Masters in Neuropsychologyfrom UAP; teacher and researcher at the same institution; at present, a Ph.D.student in Neuropsychology at the University of Salamanca, Spain). Quintanarinvited him as well as other psychology undergraduates and MP graduate studentsat UAP to listen to some lectures given by Prof. Tikhomirov in 1995.

“While Dr. Tikhomirov wasvisiting Puebla, I was an undergraduate in the Psychology Faculty of theAutonomous University in Puebla. I ... helped Dr. Tikhomirov in two lecturesbecause I was invited by Dr. Quintanar. I am grateful to Dr. Quintanar as hewas the (primary figure) responsible for my personal, human and professionaldevelopment.

I would like to divide myopinion (of Tikhomirov) into two parts. The first is related to the seriousTeacher who transmitted ... formal knowledge in a clear and accessible manner.His expositions helped me (understand) the emotional regulations of activityand of thinking, which determine the major part of human behavior. Suchexplanations enabled me to change my previous ... holistic and biological(concepts) and comprehend the human psyche. Such understanding still predominates(in) psychology. Unfortunately, my scientific concepts and thought structureswere far from his level. I was not prepared (at that stage) to understand moreprofoundly the dimensions of his words.

The second part is relatedto the Teacher who (encouraged) direct communication with his pupils, always(showing) that gladness, goodwill and sympathetic co­ existence are notdistinct from mutual respect. (Regrettably), my lack of knowledge and shynessdid not permit me to establish a broader contact with Dr. Tikhomirov. I also rememberhow Dr. Quintanar presented me and other classmates who were ... taking part inthe Master’s Program in Neuropsychology to Dr. Tikhomirov. This was veryimportant for us. (Though) there was a vast difference between us and the firstgeneration of Master’s students, we never felt the distinction from him. Heshared his smile and his friendliness all the time. I believe it is possible tomotivate others to think, and one of my motives is to defend what I respect. Inthis case, Dr. Tikhomirov and other teachers ... helped me to select aprofessional life. I say ‘thank you’ (wherever) you are.”

YuliaSolovieva (Masters in History Sciences; Ph.D. in Psychologyfrom MSU; from 1998, a teacher and researcher in the MP in Neuropsychology onthe Faculty of Psychology at UAP). During Tikhomirov’s six-month tenure atPuebla, she was a ‘free assistant’ for the MP lectures and started translatingthem on a voluntary basis from Russian into Spanish. The translations lastedfor two years.

“My work experiencealongside Oleg Konstantinovich Tikhomirov for six months in 1995 ... wasspecifically of an academic (nature). I guess I was too inexperienced then ...to assimilate all the richness of his personality. My aspiration was to implementthe proper translation of lectures in general psychology, and ... I became extremelyinterested in all themes that I heard from him. What I remember now is that Iwas reading and (re­reading) all the books that I could (get hold of), startingwith Vygotsky and ending with Tsvetkova and Tikhomirov themselves. I never ...had a conscious interest in studying psychology nor in preparing forexaminations.

I have to admit that atthat moment I did not wish to study psychology. ... I made such a decisionlater on, (after) I met Prof. N.F. Talizina [who supervised her dissertation].

I remember OlegKonstantinovich as quiet and pacific ... a dedicated lecturer, extremelypatient with students and colleagues. He always showed profound respect andfriendship to us, his colleagues and pupils, and to me, his interpreter. He wasinterested in Mexican culture and traditions, and our way of life.

I could not tell if it wasor was not his real purpose, but he achieved an influence indirectly on manypeople (including me). His influence enabled me to (recognize) the need forconstant study of general psychology and revision of its concepts and terms. Iknow that without his lectures and collaboration ... I could not have passedthe exams and defended my Ph.D. dissertation at the faculty of Psychology in MoscowState University. I am really grateful to him. It is a shame ... I never had achance to meet him again and express my gratitude.”

During his tenure at UAP, as Solovievastated, Tikhomirov expressed interest in Mexico’s history, folk art, traditionsand way of life. He always was on the lookout for general literature aboutMexico. Unfortunately, most of the material at that time was written in Spanishrather than in Russian or English. But in one instance he was given a bookentitled ‘The Legend of Quetzalcoatl’, which Quintanar had brought back uponcompletion of his studies at MSU.

On various occasions Tikhomirov spenthis free time with students. In the picture below he is sitting with severalstudents and Boris Lvovich Kagan, Prof. L.S. Tsvetkova’s husband, celebratingher birthday.

(from left to right: Ana Ruth Díaz, Víctor Patiño, Rocío Ibarrondo, O.K. Tikhomirov, Humberto Téllez, Angel Ontiveros and B.L. Kagan)

Neuropsychology is mostly separatefrom the other psychological fields. Consequently, it does not share ATs’definitions with them, and, when it does, they tend to be modified AT versions.Such a situation, at MSU as well as at universities in other countries, nowexists for both developmental and clinical neuropsychology. One potential meansof coping with this ‘academic shortfall’ would be to create contacts betweengeneral psychology and neuropsychology (in particular between the ATs ingeneral-psychology and in Luria’s concept of neuropsychology). Our approach isderived from knowledge and theoretical reflections garnered from Tikhomirov’slectures. With respect to the MP at UAP, we feel it was enriched by hislectures. In his honor, we have not yet included in the program a courseentitled ‘general psychology’. Nonetheless, seminars on neuropsychologicaltheory, assessment, and adult and childhood rehabilitation do containfundamental aspects of general psychology from both historical-cultural and ATsperspectives. Moreover, the preparation of our Mexican and foreign studentsreflects MP’s methodological, theoretical and practical strengths.

Normally, scientific contributions canbe measured by the number of articles appearing in prestigious journals or bytheir indexes of citations. But the real contribution is a function of thepersonalities involved. The concepts followed by Tikhomirov’s disciples wouldreflect such a contribution. Though he did not plan so during his tenure inMexico, he has affected the disposition of neuropsychology and developmentalpsychology in our country and in all of Latin America.

Oleg Konstantinovich gave as much ashe could, though not always in a conscious manner. Regrettably, we could notalways respond appropriately, nor could we express the depth of our gratitude.However, we are certain that his work and personality were key factors in thedevelopment of psychology as a human science.