Abstract
In reference to commentaries on the paper (Mammen and Mironenko, Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 49(4):681–713, 2015) some clarifications are introduced concerning the general landmarks and objectives in the development of psychological science, in respect to which activity theories (AT) can be assessed and evaluated. Contemporary psychological science is developing along the path of integration, as part of the emerging global world. AT has some special value and importance in this respect. It can contribute to the development of the emerging multi-paradigmatic system of the global psychological science because it combines two aspirations, which are rarely combined in psychological theories: a) consistent focus on scientific method, objectivity and conclusiveness; b) the pursuit of a holistic and complete, not simplified and not one-sided comprehension of the subject. The former provides good bases for dialogue with “objective” psychological approaches, close to natural sciences. The latter is suggesting dialogue with teleological humanitarian psychologies. Therefore, AT can engage in networking with a wide range of theories, facilitating the integration of psychological knowledge. It can contribute to resolve the much discussed collision of reductionist “scientific” theoretical models and loose “comprehensive” descriptions in contemporary psychological science. Developing dialogue and cooperation with other schools is of special importance for the RAT, which should return to the international science, where it was rooted, overcoming the language and conceptual barriers. Some new considerations are suggested regarding the theory of the two types of categories of Jens Mammen.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Glezer V.D. (2000). O roly prostranstvenno-chastotnogo analiza, primotivov i mezhpolusharnoi assimmentrii v opoznanii zritelnyh obrazov (On the role of the spatial frequency analysis, primitives and hemispheric asymmetry in the identification of visual images). Human Physiology, 26(5), 145–150.
Glezer V.D., Nevskaya A.A., Chernova N.D., Gauzelman V.E. (2003). Razdelnye funkcii polusharij golovnogo mozga pri opoznanii zritelnyh obrazov invariantno k razmeru izobrazhenij (The Separate Functions of the Left and the Right Hemispheres in Invariant Recognition of Visual Images). Sensory Systems, 17(3), 209–213.
Krojgaard, P. (2016). Keeping Track of Individuals: Insights from Developmental Psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science 50:264–276.
Mammen J. and Mifronenko I.A. (2015). Activity Theories and the Ontology of Psychology: Learning from Danish and Russian Experiences. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(4), 681–713
Mironenko, I. A. (2004). Ob integracii psichologicheskogo znanija [on the integration of psychology]. Voprosy Psikhologii, 3, 153–155.
Mironenko, I. A. (2006). O koncepcii predmeta psikhologicheskoj nauki [identifying the field of psychological science]. Metodologia i Historia Psychologii, 1, 160–178.
Mironenko, I. A. (2007). Monism, pluralism i realnost [monism, pluralism and the reality]. Voprosy Psikhologii, 3, 145–148.
Mironenko, I. A. (2008). Pop-Psichologija ili o polze nauki [in concern of the common good of science]. Voprosy Psikhologii, 2, 103–108.
Mironenko, I. A. (2013a). The crisis in psychology—systemic or local? Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 51(4), 2–21.
Mironenko, I. A. (2013b). Concerning interpretations of activity theory. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47(3), 376–393.
Mironenko I.A. (2014). Integrative and isolationist tendencies in contemporary Russian psychological science. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art. 7(2), 4–13
Mironenko I.A. (2015). Rossijskaja Psikhologija v prostranstve mirovoi nauki [Russian psychology in the context of the international science]. St. Petersburg: Nestor-History, 2015, 304p.
Mironenko I.A., Sorokin P.S. (2015). Culture in Psychology: perennial problems and contemporary methodological crisis Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, № 4,.35–45.
Neumann, A. (2016). Looking for a symphony. A sort of essay with a perspective on Activity Theories and the Ontology of Psychology: Learning from Danish and Russian Experiences by Jens Mammen & Irina Mironenko. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(2), 257–263.
Nevskaya A.A., Leushina L.I. (1990). Assimmetrija polusharij I opoznanie zritelnyh obrazov (the asymmetry of the hemispheres and the identification of visual images). Leningrad: Nauka, 1990. 152p.
Smedslund, J. (2016). Why psychology cannot be an empirical science. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(2), 185–195.
Sorokin P. (2016) Global sociology’ in different disciplinary practices: Current conditions, problems and perspectives. Current Sociology. 64(1). 41–59
Toomela, A. (2007). Culture of science: strange history of the methodological thinking in psychology. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science. doi:10.1007/s12124-007-9004-0.
Toomela, A. (2010). Modern mainstream psychology is the best? Noncumulative, historically blind, fragmented, atheoretical. In: A. Toomela & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? (pp. 1–26). Charlotte, NC:Information Age Publishing.
Toomela, A., & Valsiner, J. (Eds.) (2010). Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Valsiner, J. (2010). Integrating psychology within the globalizing world: a requiem to the post-modernist experiment withWissenschaft. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 43(1), 1–21.
Valsiner, J. (2012). A guided science: history of psychology in the mirror of its making. New Brunswick, NewJersey: Transaction Publishers.
Veresov, N. (2016). Duality of categories or dialectical concepts? Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(2), 244–256.
Wieser, M. (2016). Psychology’s “crisis” and the need for reflection. A Plea for Modesty in Psychological Theorizing. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 50(3). doi:10.1007/s12124-016-9343-9.
Zinchenko, V. P., & Mamardashvili, M. K. (2005). Problema ob’ektivnogo metoda v psikhologii [the problem of objective method in psychological science]. Proceedings of the Yaroslavl Methodological seminar, 3. Yaroslavl
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of Interest
The author declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical Approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by the author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mironenko, I.A. Activity Theory: Quest for the Unattainable and Hope for the Future (Reply to Commentaries). Integr. psych. behav. 50, 382–391 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9353-7
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-016-9353-7