Российская психология в пространстве мировой науки - Ирина Анатольевна Мироненко

подходу К. Г. Юнга взгляд классиков отечественной школы на проблему функциональной специализации человека и развитие индивидных свойств в структуре субъекта деятельности, что особенно ярко проявилось в концепции индивидуальности Б. Г. Ананьева. Функциональная специализация, специализированное развитие функций здесь рассматривается как единственно возможный путь к общей стабилизации и гармонизации развития человека, путь к гармоничной и целостной структуре личности, всегда индивидуально неповторимой.

Представляется, что именно отечественная теория в силу специфики своего подхода к природе человека как к сущности, подвергаемой радикальным изменениям в процессе исторического развития, обеспечивает, что немаловажно, и возможность формирования оптимистической картины мира у современного человека.

Таким образом, в контексте неизбежного, на мой взгляд, хотя и не равномерного, не всеобщего и не повсеместного прогресса психологии в XXI веке отечественные теория и методология представляются остро актуальными и обладают существенным потенциалом развития. Для того чтобы российская психология была воспринята мировым профессиональным сообществом как самобытная школа, необходима многоплановая и настойчивая работа российских психологов. В русле решения этой задачи особое значение имеет прояснение профессионального самосознания: переход от аморфных и внутренне противоречивых общих представлений о том, что представляет собой российская психология и какое место она занимает в контексте мировой науки, к образу четкому и дифференцированному, от понятия по сути географического, к понятию концептуальному. Очевидно, что не все российские психологи придут в результате к единому мнению. Однако я полагаю, экспликация и прояснение имеющего место «сосуществования и сложного взаимодействия различных имиджей и позиций» [Юревич, 2006, с. 12] являются необходимым условием обеспечения развития традиций отечественных теории и методологии в мировой науке современного посткризисного периода.

Resume

Integrative and isolationist tendencies in contemporary Russian Psychological Science

Hardly any of Russian psychologists today can stay indifferent to the question of the place and significance of Russian psychology in the world science and concomitant issues of integration into the global mainstream. The more so that formal evaluations of the work of Russian scientists are more and more determined by the presence or absence of their publications in foreign scientific journals and reference systems. The adequacy of such evaluation criteria and in general of that straightforward focus on the mainstream raise debates among Russian psychologists and demand analysis which is presented in a number of publications (Akser and Saveljeva, 2010; Mironenko, 2005; Mironenko, 2007b; Sirotkina and Smith, 2008; Yurevich 2008a; 2008b; 2009; 2010a; 2010b; Yurevich and Tzapenko 2010; Yasnitsky 2011). We particularly note the works of A. V. Yurevich where the problem of the integration of Russian psychology into the mainstream and the applicability of the above-mentioned criteria for the evaluation of the work of Russian scientists are considered in the broad context of social processes in the professional community.

A. V. Yurevich notes, that among Russian psychologists today we can trace both "globalist" (integrative) and "counterglobalist" (isolationist) tendencies: "Straightforward orientation to Western standards, prescribing Russian science erasing national specificity comes along side with the same straightforward denial of the need to adjoin to the world mainstream " (Yurevich 2010b, p.55).

One cannot but agree with the conclusion of A. V. Yurevich that "the obvious inadequacy of both two extreme positions and the need to preserve most prolific national features of Russian science on one hand and on the other hand, the need of integration into the global mainstream, makes feasible the compliance of the principle of optimum integration "(Yurevich 2010b, p.55).

But what should be this optimum, what issues should be considered in order to define this optimum – these remain debatable, and this I would like to discuss.

For what purpose are Russian psychologists seeking integration into the mainstream? Who and why needs it (or does not need) in the heterogeneous contemporary Russian professional community? What motives bring forth the "globalist" and "counterglobalist" tendencies?

Let us try to reveal groups in our professional community within which interests and ideals of the participants seem to be more or less the same in relation to integration with the mainstream.

Our assessment will be based on theoretical grounds and predilections within the groups. To identify those let us consider the situation in which the contemporary psychological community was formed.

Contemporary Russian professional community was formed on the remains of the paradigm of Soviet psychological science. Soviet psychology had been, in a measure forcibly kept within the framework of a mono methodological trend, oriented to standards of natural sciences and based on Marxist philosophy, with a priority of fundamental research. During the Soviet period psychological practices were restricted and research centers were scarces. There were only few units providing applied psychological research in big clinical centers, in defence industry central institutions, etc. Universities were the main centers providing psychological research and education, and there were only three universities in Russia (eight all together in the USSR), where there were psychology faculties: Moscow (MSU), Yaroslavl (YarSU), and Leningrad university (LSU). University faculties were more research centers than educational institutions, e.g., LSU graduated each year about 50 full-time students, YarSU was smaller, MSU graduated over hundred students. All education was free, the entrance was on a competitive basis. There were fully equipped laboratories, where all the students got profound training. And these faculties were doing research for the government, very well financed. The faculties and the departments were headed by well-known researchers who were directing the investigations for which the faculties got their money from the state.

When perestroika began financial support of science and education was seized. Researchers had to find some new sources for living. Many Russian specialists in mathematics and physics went abroad. For psychologists this appeared to be not so easy because of the language barrier and because of their specific theoretical background. But another powerful source of finance sprang up: the "customer demand" for practical psychology. Three product areas opened where psychologists were called for and very well paid:

• Politics. Elections, gubernatorial and others. Politicians believed that psychologists could help them to exert influence upon the voters.

• Young and wild Russian business. New Russians believed that psychologists could help them to sell their products and to raise labor productivity.

• Psychological education.