English

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

From the late 20th century until the present time, researchers in the broad field of psychological science have been noting the need for refined intellectual frameworks to arise (Homskaya, 2010; Kandel, 1998, Rossouw, 2011; Rossouw, 2014). Western views that are presented in the following pages refer to “…the dawn of the mental health renaissance.” (Rossouw, 2011, p. 3), which was heralded by the “…new intellectual framework in psychiatry” (Kandel, 1998, p. 457) and the corresponding technological advances in the neurosciences. As a result, the emerging field of brain-based care is rapidly gaining momentum - a neuroscientifically informed therapy or neuropsychotherapy (Grawe, 2007, Rossouw, 2014). In the early years of 20th century a group of academics in the field of psychology in Russia formed a new school, which during the restricted times of Soviet regime received insufficient recognition on a global scale (Kostyanaya & Rossouw, 2013). The investigators aimed at developing an “objective” approach to understanding the connection between mind and brain with latest research focussed on the problem of personality, its neural correlates and the impact of society on human mental functioning (Homskaya, 2010; Luria, 1979). Due to the opening of the iron curtain and present-day globalisation more literature on Soviet psychological developments is being translated and is becoming available for a broader audience (see, for example multiple works of Akhutina (2003), Akhutina & Pylaeva, 2012; Leontiev (2005a, 2005b, 2012, 2013), published in English). This new state of affairs allows the comparative analysis of Soviet paradigms and the contemporary Western paradigms which is the general aim of this paper. In the first part of the paper a neuropscyhotherapeutic framework is presented, starting with an outline of its roots and most current conceptualisations of neuropsychotherapy as a research field. The second part of the report focuses on the development of Soviet school of psychology and its main postulates. The third part of the report includes the comparative analysis of the two paradigms as well as a consideration for future analytic inquiry in this area. The final part of the paper closes with a succinct conclusion.