Boris Lomov`s Systems Approach in the Context of the Science Culture of the Late Soviet Period
https://doi.org/10.24833/2541-8831-2022-4-24-15-26
Abstract
The focus of the article is the research program of B. F. Lomov, viewed through the prism of Russian scientific culture, while taking into account the nuances of the late Soviet period. Scientific culture is analyzed in accordance with a model that singles out practices as a typical and stable way of doing things, and patterns as cognitive elements that integrate culture into a concise whole. Viewed via this model, any innovation appears to involve introduction of new practices into the culture. That means the risk of the introduced practices colliding with existing patterns. There are three main patterns of the Russian scientific culture that operated in the Soviet period, which are described as formulas analogous with the themes of S. Moskovichi: (a) science is a state matter, (b) basic science creates groundwork for the technologies of the future, (c) science is a selfless service. The practices promoted within Lomov's program were largely associated with American engineering psychology as practiced by A. Chapanis, and, as such, collided with the organization of the Soviet scientific establishment, built around the patterns mentioned. As a consequence of this contention, the article examines the tension that arose in Soviet psychology in the 1970s and 1980s between the supporters of the activity theory of A. N. Leontiev on one side and B. F. Lomov’s systems approach on the other. It draws parallels between this collision and the collision of the practices promoted by Lomov with the patterns of the science culture of the late Soviet period. Both external and internal perspectives are employed: the article examines the theoretical contradictions between the activity theory and the systems approach, and at the same time investigates the context of the theoretical argument: the transfer of the leadership in the psychological science from the Academy of the Pedagogical Sciences to the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, the mosaic outlay of the newly established Institute of Psychology, the influence of new approaches to the organization of research.
About the Author
V. I. KonnovRussian Federation
Vladimir I. Konnov — PhD in Sociology, Associate Professor of the Department of Philosophy
76, Prospect Vernadskogo, Moscow, Russia, 119454
References
1. Balyshev, A. V., Konnov, V. I. and Kharkevich, M. V. (2014) ‘Value Orientations of the RFBR Experts: a Cognitive Mapping’, Sociologičeskie issledovaniâ, (3), pp. 94–106. (In Russian).
2. Belopolsky, V., Zhuravlev, A. and Kostrigin, A. (2020) ‘The History of Organization and Beginning of Activity of the Institute of Psychology of the Soviet Academy of Sciences in Documents and Memories of Contemporaries’, Psikhologicheskii zhurnal, 41(5), pp. 97–107. (In Russian). https://doi.org/10.31857/ S020595920011085-9
3. Bodalev, A. A. (2007) ‘Boris F. Lomov — Alumnus of Leningrad Psychological School and its Traditions Talanted Successor’, Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 28(3), pp. 14–16. (In Russian).
4. Chapanis, A. (1999) The Chapanis Chronicles: 50 Years of Human Factors Research, Education and Design. Santa Barbara: Aegean Publ.
5. D’Andrade, R. G. (1995) The Development of Cognitive Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139166645
6. Gulyga, A. V. (1955) ‘Vozniknovenie pozitivizma [Emergence of positivism]’, Voprosy Filosofii, (6), pp. 57–69. (In Russian).
7. Konnov, V. I. (2012) ‘The Characteristics of the Russian Research Culture: The Possibilities of the SocialPsychological Approach’, Voprosy psihologii, (4), pp. 3–12. (In Russian).
8. Leontiev, A. N. (1983) ‘Deiatel’nost’, soznanie, lichnost’ [Activity, Consciousness, Personality]’, in Izbrannye psikhologicheskie proizvedeniia. T. 2 [Selected Psychological Works. Vol. 2]. Moscow: Znanie Publ., pp. 94–231. (In Russian).
9. Lomov, B. F. (1966) Chelovek i tekhnika: Ocherki inzhenernoy psikhologii [Man and technology: Essays on engineering psychology]. Moscow: Sovetskoe radio Publ. (In Russian).
10. Lomov, B. F. (1970) ‘Inzhenernaia psikhologiia [Engineering Psychology]’, in Nauka i chelovechestvo [Science and Humanity]. Moscow: Znanie Publ., pp. 38–55. (In Russian).
11. Lomov, B. F. (1977) ‘O sostoianii i perspektivakh razvitiia psikhologicheskoi nauki v SSSR [On the Current State and Prospects of the Development of the Psychological Science in the USSR]’, Voprosy psihologii, (5), pp. 9–24. (In Russian).
12. Lomov, B. F. (1979) ‘Psikhologiia v sisteme nauk i v obshchestvennoi praktike [Psychology in the System of Sciences and in Social Practice]’, Vestnik AN SSSR, (6), pp. 35–45. (In Russian).
13. Lomov, B. F. (1981) ‘On the Problem of Human Activities in Psychology’, Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 2(5), pp. 3–22. (In Russian).
14. Lomov, B. F. (1991) ‘Vystuplenie na torzhestvennom sobranii, posviashchennom 15-letiiu obrazovaniia Instituta psikhologii AN SSSR [The Address at the Official Meeting in Honor of the 15th Anniversary of the establishment of the Institute of Psychology of the AS USSR]’, Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 12(4), pp. 16–26. (In Russian).
15. Moscovici, S. (2001) Social Representations: Essays in Social Psychology. New York: New York University Press.
16. Piskoppel, A. A. and Shchedrovitsky, L. P. (1980) ‘Inzhenernaia psikhologiia ili ergonomika? [Engineering psychology or ergonomics]’, Voprosy psihologii, (3), pp. 88–101. (In Russian).
17. Rossiiskaia nauka v litsakh: kn. 1-4; vyp. 5-6. [Russian Science in Personalities: Books 1-4; Issues 5-6]
18. (2002-2009). Moscow: Academia Publ. (In Russian).
19. Shweder, R. (2003) Why do men barbecue?: Recipes for cultural psychology. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
20. Smith, R. (1997) The Norton History of the Human Sciences. New York: W. W. Norton Company.
21. Smolyan, G. L. (2017) ‘Vladimir Zinchenko and the Making of the Industrial Psychology in USSR’, Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 14(4), pp. 626–643. (In Russian). https://doi. org/10.17323/1813-8918-2017-4-626-643
22. Vidmer, R. F. (1980) ‘Management Science in the USSR: The Role of “Americanizers”’, International Studies Quarterly, 24(3), pp. 392–414. https://doi.org/10.2307/2600253
23. Yurevich, A. V (2015) ‘Whether the Science Has National Features?’, Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal, 36(1), pp. 123–132. (In Russian).
Review
For citations:
Konnov V.I. Boris Lomov`s Systems Approach in the Context of the Science Culture of the Late Soviet Period. Concept: philosophy, religion, culture. 2022;6(4):15-26. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2541-8831-2022-4-24-15-26