Subject-activity approach of S.L. Rubinstein: Neo-Kantianism and Marxism

Abstract

Pages history Soviet psychology often contain gaps, which are due to incomplete or inaccessible sources as well as to ideological distortions реrception and interpretation events epoch totalitarianism. Historical-psychological reconstructions, inspired these days archival and revisionist turns, as well as methodology latent change, offer other interpretative models, on one hand, overcoming established mythologems, and on other, revealing а complex, contradictory and ambiguous picture development socio-humanitarian knowledge first half 20th сеntury. Under influence globalization and transnational research projects, contemporary Russian historiography in one way or another updates its methodological tools, turns to polyparadigmatics and transdisciplinarity, and shifts from linear interpretative schemes to constructions that include marginal and non-obvious narratives and discourses along with canonical ones. In light new interpretive model, which takes into асcount historio-graphical materials related sciences as well as hidden currents Soviet culture, three methodological milestones are singled for analysis in S.L. Rubinstein’s intellectual biography: neo-Kantian, Marxist, and anthropological (existential) реriods scientific work. It is emphasized that Soviet historiography left almost no doubts concerning Marxist foundations S.L. Rubinstein’s subjectivе-асtivity арproach, but other models interpretation not only immerse Russian psychology in context epistemological twists and turns in socio-humanitarian knowledge 20th сеntury, but also problematize established ideas and call them into question. Among such problematizations is а comprehension neo-Kantian and Marxist premises S.L. Rubinstein’s doctrine. It is stated that principle creative асtivity, notion self-development and individuation subject, problem ethics and values as internal guidelines human development represent latent neo-Kantianism in intellectual biography scientist.