Soviet psychology has not escaped stagnation. What are the reasons for this? In my view, not a lack of studies or a low level of methodology (although, naturally, these have also been factors), but, most importantly, the attitude toward freedom of scientific thought. It is hard to imagine that psychology lacked talent. But where are the new paradigms? We are not speaking of the successes (sometimes very considerable) of particular procedures, or of particular scientific developments—of the concept of the psychological essence of man. Thorndike, Freud, Levin, Piaget, Vygotsky, and Rogers were the originators of such paradigms (as we see, the names are mostly foreign). Of course, we have our established theoretical approaches, sanctified by tradition, e.g., the cultural-historical approach or the activity approach. But for decades disputes have been raging among advocates, pupils, and successors (of Vygotsky, Rubinshtein, Leont'ev, and other outstanding Soviet psychologists), while attempts to enunciate elements of new paradigms have frequently been stifled: articles have been refused on various pretexts by editorial boards (or published in distorted form), and artificial obstacles have been created for work on dissertations. Pseudo-ideological arguments have come to "feel at home" in scientific discussions, and independence from the "only true" psychological theories has been considered a deviation from ideological foundations. The pages of journals, swept free of "hot material," have often been filled with theoretical discussions that looked like science, but were vacuous, a kind of "psychological theater."