Epilogue: The Relevance of Vygotsky’s Legacy

  • Manolis Dafermos
Part of the Perspectives in Cultural-Historical Research book series (PCHR, volume 4)


This chapter takes as its point of departure the view that Vygotsky’s theory should be recontextualized and fundamentally developed as part of a much larger set of major questions arising in the early twenty-first century. It is argued that dialectics can shed light on the way to move beyond both the dogmatic and relativist forms of the reception of Vygotsky’s legacy. Rethinking Vygotsky’s project, taking into account the contemporary crisis in social sciences that were reproduced in a society riven by deep crises and conflicts, is an important step in this direction. Bringing together theory and practice in a dialectical way Vygotsky’s project is internally connected with an active engagement in the struggle for social emancipation.


  1. Barić, H., Baždarić, K., Glasnović, A., & Gajović, S. (2017). Why scholarly publishing might be a bubble. Croat Med J., 58, 1–3. Scholar
  2. Carolina Consortium on Human Development. (1996). Developmental science: A collaborative statement. In R. B. Cairns, G. Elder, & E. J. Costello (Eds.), Developmental science (pp. 1–6). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Charlton, B. G. (2008). Zombie science: A sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Med Hypotheses, 71(3), 327–329. Scholar
  4. Dafermos, M., & Marvakis, A. (2006). Critiques in psychology–critical psychology. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 5, 1–20.Google Scholar
  5. Dafermos, M. (2014). Vygotsky’s analysis of the crisis in psychology: Diagnosis, treatment, and relevance. Theory and Psychology, 24(2), 147–165. Scholar
  6. Dafermos, M. (2015). Rethinking the crisis in social psychology: A dialectical perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 9(8), 394–405. Scholar
  7. Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness explained. New York: Back Bay Books.Google Scholar
  8. Derry, J. (2008). Abstract rationality in education: from Vygotsky to Brandom. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 27(1), 49–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Elms, A. C. (1975). The crisis of confidence in social psychology. American Psychology, 30, 967–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Goertzen, J. R. (2008). Psychology on the possibility of unification: The reality and nature of the crisis in psychology. Theory and Psychology, 18, 829–852. Scholar
  11. Henriques, G. (2011). A new unified theory of psychology. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haenen, J. (1992). Introduction: Piotr Gal’perin and the content of Soviet psychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 30(4), 3–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Holzman, L. (2006). Activating postmodernism. Theory and Psychology, 16(1), 109–123. Scholar
  14. Ilyenkov, E. V. (2009). The ideal in human activity. Pacifica, CA: Marxist Internet Archive.Google Scholar
  15. Jörg, T. (2011). New thinking in complexity for the social sciences and humanities. A generative, transdisciplinary approach. London, New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kozulin, A. (2016). Foreword: how to reconstruct deconstructions. In A. Yasnitsky, & R. van der Veer (Eds.), Revisionist revolution in Vygotsky studies (pp. xii–xvi). London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Leontiev, A. N. (1981). The problem of activity in psychology. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 37–71). Armonk, NY: Sharpe.Google Scholar
  18. Mironenko, I. A., & Sorokin, P. S. (2015). Culture in psychology: Perennial problems and the contemporary methodological crisis. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 8(4), 35–45.Google Scholar
  19. Morin, E. (1999). Seven complex lessons in education for the future. Paris: UNESCO Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Patelis, D. (2011). Socio-philosophical heritage and the logic of History. Fragmentos de Cultura, Goiânia, 21(7/9), 389–414.Google Scholar
  21. Ratner, C. (2012). Macro cultural psychology. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and Psychology (pp. 207–240). New York: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  22. Robinson, W. I. (2014). Global capitalism and the crisis of humanity. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schraube, E., & Osterkamp, U. (Eds.). (2013). Psychology from the standpoint of the subject selected Writings of Klaus Holzkamp. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  24. Shotter, J. (1993). Cultural politics of everyday Life. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  25. Staats, Α. W. (1983). Psychology’s crisis of disunity: Philosophy and method for a unified science. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  26. Staats, A. W. (1986). Unified Positivism: A philosophy for psychology and the disunited sciences. Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 6(2), 77–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Unified psychology. American Psychologist, 56, 1069–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stetsenko, A. (2003). Alexander Luria and the Cultural-Historical Activity Theory: Pieces for the history of an outstanding collaborative project in psychology. Mind, Culture and Activity, 10(1), 93–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stetsenko, A. (2017). The transformative mind: Expanding Vygotsky’s approach to development and education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. M. (2004a). Vygotskian collaborative project of social transformation: History, politics, and practice in knowledge construction. The International Journal of Critical Psychology, 12(4), 58–80.Google Scholar
  31. Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. (2004b). The self in cultural-historical activity theory: Reclaiming the unity of social and individual dimensions of human development. Theory and Psychology, 14(4), 475–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tolman, C. W., Coughlan, R., & Robinson, C. N. B. (1996). The postmodernist appropriation of Vygotsky. In J. Lompscher (Ed.), Lernen und entwicklung aus kulturhistorischer sicht: Was sagt uns Wygotski heute? (Vol. 1, pp. 117–129). Marburg: BdWiVerlag.Google Scholar
  33. Valsiner, J. (1988). Developmental psychology in the Soviet Union. Bloomington, Indianapolis: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Valsiner, J. (2005). General Introduction. Developmental science in the making: the role of Heinz Werner. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Heinz Werner and developmental science (pp. 1–18). New York: Kluwer Scientific/Plenum Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. Valsiner, J. (2012). Introduction: Culture in psychology: A renewed encounter of inquisitive minds. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of culture and psychology (pp. 3–24). New York: Oxford University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Vazjulin, V. A. (1988). The logic of history. Questions of theory and methodology. Moscow: Moscow State University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Veresov, N. (2014). Refocusing the lens on development: Towards genetic research methodology. In M. Fleer, & A. Ridgway (Eds.), Visual methodologies and digital tools for researching with young children (pp. 129–149). Springer.Google Scholar
  38. Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The historical meaning of the crisis of psychology. In R. Rieber, & J. Wolloc (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 3, pp. 233–344). New York, London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  39. Wertsch, J. (1996). The role of abstract rationality in Vygotsky’s image of mind. In A. Tryphon & J. N. Voneche (Eds.), Piaget-Vygotsky: The social genesis of thought (pp. 25–45). Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  40. Yasnitsky, A., & van der Veer, R. (Eds.). (2016). Revisionist revolution in Vygotsky studies. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of CreteRethymnonGreece

Personalised recommendations