The concept of "human knowledge" (B.G. Ananiev). Ananyev the structure of human knowledge The doctrine of personality in the psychological theory of ananyev

The concept of "human knowledge" (B.G. Ananiev)

The concept is based on theoretical and experimental studies of individual human development in the system of synthetic human knowledge. According to Ananiev, human evolution is a single process in all its multiplicity of states and properties, a deterministic history. the living conditions of a person in society.

Individuality is a product of the fusion of the social and the biological in the individual development of a person. Individuality directs the development of the individual, personality and subject in the general structure of a person, stabilizes it, interconnects properties and is an important factor in high vitality and longevity.

Personality is a component of individuality, its characteristics as societies. individual, object and subject history. process. If personality is the "pinnacle" of the entire structure of human properties, then individuality is the "depth" of the personality and subject. The originality and uniqueness of individuality are manifested in the ratio of open and closed systems that reveal a person as a subject of activity and a subject of mental activity.

As an open system, a person, being in constant interaction with nature and society, carries out the individual, the development of his human properties in the personality with its social ties and the subject of activity, transforming reality. But man is also a closed system due to the internal interconnectedness of the properties of personality, individual and subject, which constitute the core of his personality (self-consciousness and "I"). The uniqueness of individuality is manifested in the transition of internal tendencies and potencies into the products of the creative activity of the individual, which changes the surrounding world and its societies, development. Ontogenesis of individuality is an internally contradictory, uneven and heterochronous process. The internal inconsistency of the development of the personality determines the change of its societies, functions, roles, states, which, in turn, increase the inconsistency of the evolution of the individual.

In personality, Ananyev distinguished an interindividual structure as a social whole to which the personality belongs with its societies, connections and relationships in activity, and an intraindividual structure, which includes five hierarchically related substructures (mental processes; states; personality traits; sensory and mnemonic functions; motivation with needs and attitudes), as an internal mental formation of the personality itself.

The personality structure is simultaneously built according to the subordination principle of subordination of more general properties to elementary, private social and psychophysiological properties and the coordination principle, in which the interaction of correlated properties is combined with their relative autonomy (for example, a system of value orientations, attitudes). The totality of the properties of the intraindividual structure constitutes character as a system of personality traits, its subjective relationships to society, other people, to itself, constantly being realized in societies, behavior and fixed in the way of life. Character is the pinnacle of personality traits.

Bibliography

L.A. Lepikhova. The concept of "human knowledge" (B.G. Ananiev)

The specificity of Ananyev's approach to personality consisted, as already noted, in its inclusion in a wide anthropological context, the context of human knowledge. Therefore, his merit is associated primarily with the boldness of the inclusion of psychology in the system of human sciences, with the return to psychology of a whole complex of connections that were not taken into account before in the analysis of personality. We can say that if Ananyev notes as Rubinstein's merit the definition of the integrative essence of personality developed by him, then Ananyev's merit turned out to be the inclusion of the personality in the integral system of human knowledge. Here, the anthropological, historical, ontogenetic, age-related, and biographical aspects of the consideration of the problem of personality are present in unity. He turns his critical pathos, quite rightly, against the tendency of Russian psychologists, characteristic of the 1950s and 1960s, to concentrate (and restrict) around the problems of the personality structure, “abstracted from the real time course of its life cycle”. At the same time, it should be noted that with extraordinary scrupulousness he analyzed practically all the views of Russian psychologists on the structure of personality. He, being one of the initiators of the most important symposium on the problem of personality, took an active part in the discussion about its structure. Thus, the historical, biographical and other dimensions in his concept appear as a temporary dimension of the personality. Undoubtedly, the priority of introducing the problems of the life path into the domestic theory of personality belongs to Rubinstein (1935), but Ananyev's detailed elaboration of the problems of the “human life cycle”, its various periodizations, grows into a generalized formulation of the problem of time in personality psychology. Ananyev made a detailed critical analysis of the concept of the life path of S. Buhler and on this basis showed that life corresponds to the hierarchical principle. Wishing to emphasize this circumstance, Ananyev develops an understanding of individuality precisely as a person's achievement of the highest level of development of his essence and his whole life. However, unlike Rubinstein, Ananiev connects the concept of the subject not with the path of life, but with activity, communication, cognition.

Unlike most Russian psychologists, Ananiev considers the social determination of the personality not abstractly (social relations were interpreted by Rubinstein and Leontiev in this way), but from the sociological positions already formed by that time. That is why he, defining, like many others, the personality as a social individual, concretizes this definition through the social situations of its development, status, lifestyle, socio-psychological and other conditions, up to demographic problems. He rightly notes that in this perspective, the personality acts as an object of social development. In this case, the quality of the subject coincides with the actual psychological definition of personality as a system of relationships, attitudes, motives, values, etc. But, in turn, for psychological science, personality is also an object (subject) of cognition. In addition, after carrying out a proper sociological analysis of the contradictions of capitalist society, Ananyev comes to the conclusion that they lead to a certain “separation” of the personality from the properties of the subject, that is, the expansion of the human structure (we add in general, due to the action of alienation). But this is already a different basis for determining the essence of the subject, associated with the possibility-impossibility of realizing his creative essence in certain events, situations, in concrete historical (true-capitalist) relations. Thus, Ananyev lacks an understanding of the subject as a subject of the life path, which was proposed by Rubinstein practically in the same fifties. This understanding presupposes the disclosure of the dependence of the life path on the personality itself. In this case, we are not talking about a biographical approach, which includes individual differences in the way of life (as variations) in a single periodization of life, but about the subjective approach itself, in which the essential characteristics of the person's way of life are revealed.

However, Ananyev, proposing not a traditionally dynamic, but a historical, biographical understanding of life time, revealed the most important characteristics from the point of view of personality development - the start, the culmination of the highest achievements in the chosen activity and the finish, showed the dependence of the culmination on the moment of the start, and the start on the history of upbringing personality. Thus, the main idea of S. Buhler was concretized, who sought to show life as not an accidental, unique fate of a person, but a natural history. But at the same time, he connected these phases, mainly, with the subject of activity (and not the life path as a whole), believing that “it is possible to determine the main moments of the formation, stabilization and finish of the personality only by comparing the shifts in many parameters of human social development: state, economic situation, marital status, reconciliation, consolidation or separation of social functions (roles, nature of values and their reassessment in certain historical circumstances), changes in the environment of development and communication, conflict situations and solving life problems, the feasibility or unfulfillment of a life plan, success or failure-triumph or defeat in the fight. As noted, in our opinion, Ananyev's desire to concretize the concept of a person's life cycle in the categories of sociology as the most progressive direction at that time and thereby overcome the abstract nature of the principle of social determination of the personality, to express this determination in categories close to the personality, is especially affected here. He complements the typification inherent in the sociological approach with individualization. However, in this case he means individualization. ontogenetic evolution: “a very important direction of the influence of a person's life path (biography) on his ontogenetic evolution is the ever-increasing individualization of this evolution”. Thus, in our opinion, in the concept of Ananyev, the relationship of the life path 1) as a biography, that is, an individual history proper, a life path (or cycle) 2) as a socially typical process, including stages common to all people, remains unclear, and 3) ontogenetic process of human evolution.

Very significant, as noted, is Ananyev's role in the discussion on the problem of personality structure, which turned out to be the main one by the end of the sixties and became the main subject of discussion at the 1969 personality symposium. When presenting the views on the personality of the representatives of the Georgian school, we did not specifically dwell on the position of V.T. Norakidze, since it was Ananyev who noted his contribution to the problem of personality structure on the basis of empirical studies of the role of a fixed attitude in character formation. Ananiev compares the views on the problem of personality structure of A.G. Kovalev, V.N. Myasishchev, K.K. Platonov and S.L. Rubinstein, revealing their differences, contradictions and commonality. "Contradictory views reflect the objective complexity of the mutual transitions between the integration and differentiation of the phenomena of personality development."

Based on Rubinstein's idea that the principle of integration is fundamental for the development of personality, Ananiev comes to the conclusion that “development is indeed an increase in scale and levels of integration — the formation of large“ blocks ”, systems or structures, the synthesis of which at a certain moment in a person’s life appears as the most general structure of his personality ”(ibid.). But at the same time, in his opinion, the development of personality is also “an ever-increasing differentiation of its psychophysiological functions, processes, states and personal properties, commensurate with progressive integration” (ibid.), That is, there are convergent and divergent relations between differentiation and integration.

It is essential that Ananyev imperceptibly moves from the question of the structure of the personality (even if, according to Platonov, functional) to the question of the development of the personality and thus goes into a completely different plane. We believe that the discussion on the structure of personality was not very fruitful precisely because in all points of view (except Myasishchev, as we will see later), the structure itself was considered as an abstraction of the intra-individual organization of the personality. Without accentuating the problem of the relationship between the intra- and interindividual, Ananiev nevertheless actually takes the discussion beyond the framework of the question of the structure of the intraindividual. The exclusivity and advantage of the Myasishchev concept also consisted in the fact that the concept of "relationship", on the basis of which he defined a person, was an inextricable link between the intra- and interindividual. In Myasishchev's concept, personality is immediately defined as a system, and not just a structure, and, moreover, carrying not only integrating and differentiating tendencies, which Ananyev drew attention to, but integrating and disintegrating (i.e., contradictory) tendencies.

A.G. Kovalev also drew attention to the presence of internal contradictions, linking them with the uneven development of individual personality structures, between claims and objective capabilities, between sensual and logical in the process of reflection (feeling and reason), between natural data and acquired personality traits. The limitation of Ananyev's understanding of personality manifested itself, in our opinion, in the fact that he did not pay attention to this aspect of the concepts of Kovalev and Myasishchev, who sought to identify contradictions in personal organization (although he noted the importance of analyzing the phenomena of panic, stress, frustration, life conflicts). Having undertaken grandiose empirical studies of the relationship between various mental properties and neoplasms, he basically found himself within the framework of the correlation principle. (Although he himself theoretically noted that the structure of the personality is built on two-subordinate (or hierarchical) and coordination principles).

Summing up, we can say that the concept of Ananyev's personality, due to his comprehensive scientific approach as a whole, turned out to be the most multifaceted, multifaceted, which made it possible to combine many private or incomparable concepts. He worked on the conceptual aspect of the problem of personality in the continuum of the concepts of “subject”, “personality”, “individual”, “individuality”. The personality appeared both as included in society, and as developing in the ontogenetic cycle and life path and as a contemporary of its era, etc. Thanks to this, the concept of Ananyev's personality has not lost its heuristic significance to this day.

Ananiev Boris Gerasimovich(1907-1972) - an outstanding Russian psychologist. He began his scientific career as a post-graduate student at the Brain Institute during the life of VM Bekhterev. 1968-1972 was the dean of the Faculty of Psychology at Leningrad State University. He is the founder of the Leningrad psychological school. Author of fundamental works in the field of sensory perception, communication psychology, educational psychology. He proposed a system of human knowledge, which integrated data from various human sciences.

____________________________________________________________________________

The explanation-report is divided into 3 parts:

Introduction and classification according to B.G. Ananiev "Individual"

Classifications according to B.G. Ananiev "Personality", "Subject of activity"

Classification according to B.G. Ananiev "Individuality"

_____________________________________________________________________________

How to understand another person's behavior? Why do people have different abilities? What is “soul” and what is its nature? These and other questions have always occupied the minds of people, and over time, interest in a person and his behavior has constantly increased.

A rational approach to understanding the world is based on the fact that the reality around us exists independently of our consciousness, can be studied empirically, and the observed phenomena are fully explainable from a scientific point of view. To implement this approach, it is necessary to have a general understanding of the subject of research. In various fields of science, scientists have repeatedly attempted to formulate a holistic view of man. Of course, such a view also exists in psychology.

One of the most popular approaches to the study of man in Russian psychology was proposed by B. G. Anan'ev. Assessing the importance of Ananyev's activities for domestic science, first of all, it is necessary to emphasize that he developed a fundamentally new methodological approach to the study of the human psyche. This made it possible not only to single out new sections of psychology that had not previously existed as independent, but also to take a fresh look at the person himself. Speaking about the main features of the development of scientific knowledge about man, Ananyev noted that the problem of man is becoming a common problem for all of science as a whole. At the same time, both the ever-increasing differentiation and specialization of individual disciplines and the tendency towards the unification of various sciences and methods of human research are characteristic of the scientific knowledge of man. Modern science is more and more interested in problems related to human health, his creativity, learning and, of course, his thoughts and experiences, and the study of man and human activity is carried out in a comprehensive manner, taking into account all aspects of these problems.

Ananiev identified four basic concepts in the human knowledge system: an individual, a subject of activity, personality and individuality.

The concept of "individual" has several interpretations. First of all, an individual is a person as a single natural being, a representative of the species Homo sapiens. In this case, the biological essence of a person is emphasized. But sometimes this concept is used to designate a person as a separate representative of the human community, as a social being using tools. However, even in this case, the biological essence of a person is not denied.

Man as an individual has certain properties (Fig. 1.1). Ananiev singled out the primary and secondary properties of the individual. He referred to the primary properties inherent in all people, such as age characteristics (compliance with a certain age) and sexual dimorphism (belonging to a particular gender), as well as individual-typical characteristics, including constitutional features (features of body composition), neurodynamic properties of the brain , features of the functional geometry of the cerebral hemispheres. The totality of the primary properties of the individual determines his secondary properties: the dynamics of psychophysiological functions and the structure of organic needs. In turn, the integration of all these properties determines the characteristics of a person's temperament and inclinations.

Rice. 1.1. The structure of the concept of "individual" (according to B. G. Ananiev)

Another concept that characterizes a person as an object of the real world is “personality”. This concept, like the concept of "individual", has various interpretations. In particular, personality is understood as an individual as a subject of social relations and conscious activity. Some authors understand personality as a systemic property of an individual, which is formed in joint activities and communication. There are other interpretations of this concept, but they all agree on one thing: the concept of "personality characterizes a person as a social being(fig. 1.2). Within the framework of this concept, such psychological properties of an individual as motivation, temperament, abilities and character are considered.

Rice. 1.2. The structure of the concept - "personality" (according to B. G. Ananiev)

__________________________________________________________________________________

The next concept that Ananiev singled out in the study of man is "the subject of activity." In terms of its content, this concept occupies an intermediate position between the concepts of "individual" and "personality". The subject of activity unites the biological principle and the social essence of a person into a single whole. If a person did not have the ability to act as a subject of activity, then it is unlikely that he could be considered as a social being, since his evolution and social development are impossible without activity.

Before characterizing a person as a subject of activity, it is necessary to understand the meaning of the concept of "subject" as a philosophical category. Most often this concept is used in conjunction with the concept of "object". The object and the subject are always in a certain relationship. An object is an object or phenomenon of the real world that exists independently of our consciousness, acting as a goal towards which the activity of a person - the subject of influence - is directed. A person is always surrounded by certain objects or is faced with the phenomena of the real world. Depending on what or to whom his activity is directed, this or that object can act as an object. The object can be the very activity of a person.

Rice. 1.3. The structure of the concept of "subject of activity" (according to B. G. Ananiev)

_________________________________________________________________________________

The main feature of a person as a subject that distinguishes him from other living beings is consciousness (Fig. 1.3). Consciousness is the highest form of mental development, inherent only in humans. It determines the possibility of cognizing objective reality, the formation of purposeful behavior and, as a consequence, the transformation of the surrounding world. In turn, the ability of conscious activity to transform the surrounding world is another feature of a person as a subject. In this way, the subject is an individual as a bearer of consciousness, possessing the ability to act. So, a person can be considered, firstly, as a representative of living nature, a biological object, secondly, as a subject of conscious activity and, thirdly, as a social being. That is, a person is a biosocial being endowed with consciousness and the ability to act. The combination of these three levels into one whole forms an integral characteristic of a person - his individuality

Individuality is a set of mental, physiological and social characteristics of a particular person from the point of view of his uniqueness, originality and originality. The prerequisite for the formation of human individuality is anatomical and physiological inclinations, which are transformed in the process of upbringing, which has a socially determined character. The variety of conditions of upbringing and innate characteristics gives rise to a wide variety of manifestations of individuality.

Thus, we can conclude that a person is one of the most complex objects in the real world. The structural organization of a person is multi-level and reflects his natural and social essence (Fig. 1.4). Therefore, it is not surprising that there are a significant number of sciences that study man and his activities.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction
Conclusion
Bibliography

Introduction

This topic is as relevant as such an outstanding Russian psychologist as Boris Gerasimovich Ananiev, who raised more than one generation of psychologists and determined the prospects for the development of Leningrad psychological science. His personal influence and authority were so great that after years many of those who had the good fortune to work with him still check their scientific intentions and social actions against his supposed assessments.

Ananiev is a follower of V.M. Ankylosing spondylitis; nevertheless, his attitude towards Bekhterev was rather complex: in the period 1930-1950, when official psychology did not accept Bekhterev's reflexology, Ananiev distanced himself from reflexology, repeatedly emphasized that he was not Bekhterev's student and even used the term “bekhterev's”. Ananiev made a similar revolution in relation to psychology: from a complete rejection of psychology as a science to its approval as a central science within the framework of human knowledge.

While working at the Faculty of Psychology of Leningrad State University, Ananiev made an attempt to overcome the fragmentation of the human sciences and create a systemic model of human knowledge, which would generalize the research of various sciences about man as a person and individuality. In his model, human sciences are grouped into four sections:

1) man as a biological species;

2) ontogenesis and the way of life of a person as an individual;

3) study of a person as a person;

4) the problem of humanity. He singled out hierarchically subordinate levels of human organization: individual, personality, individuality. He believed that individuality is formed on the basis of the relationship between the characteristics of a person as a person and as a subject of activity, which are due to the natural properties of a person as an individual. Ananiev is also known for his works in the field of sensory perception, as well as developmental and differential psychology, research on the psychology of communication, problems of restoring the working capacity of the wounded during the Great Patriotic War. One of the first in the USSR, Ananyev organized a psychological service based on a secondary school in the Vyborg district of Leningrad.

His students were psychologists A.A. Bodalev, N.V. Krogius, B.F. Lomov, A.G. Kovalev and others. Later, some of them formed independent scientific concepts and created their own schools.

In the works of B.G. Ananyev, performed in the sixties, were posed, formulated, developed many methodological problems that are of fundamental importance for Russian psychological science. These works largely determined the subsequent development of psychology. B.G. Ananyev have clearly demonstrated the advantages of an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to the problem of man, allowed psychology to really become a science of man in all its complexity and versatility. Anthropologism as a principle of building psychological science made it possible to look differently at the very subject of psychology, which, in the concept of B.G. Ananyeva appears as a multilevel systemic organization of the psyche. Note that the consideration of the mental within the framework of Ananiev's approach made it possible to go beyond the framework of psychophysiological parallelism and, avoiding reductionism, "fit" the psyche into the "scientific picture of man." It is in this that the still not fully appreciated methodological significance of Ananyev's works is seen.

Purpose of work: To study the psychological concept of B.G. Ananyeva.

Task of work:

· To analyze the main milestones in the biography of B. G. Ananyev.

· Highlight the role of B. G. Ananyev in the history of the development of Russian psychology.

Research object: psychological concept of B.G. Ananyeva.

Subject of research: the essence, content and role of the concept of B. G. Ananyev in the history of the development of Russian psychology.

This work consists of an introduction, two chapters and conclusions on them, a conclusion and a list of references.

1. Life and work of B.G. Ananyeva

1.1 The creative path of B.G. Ananyeva

B.G. Ananyev began his scientific career as a student at the Gorsk Pedagogical Institute in Vladikavkaz (Ordzhonikidze). His first scientific mentor R.I. Cheranovsky was a supporter of V.M. Ankylosing spondylitis. Probably, on his advice and with his assistance, the young student went for an internship at the Institute for the Study of the Brain and practiced there for several months in 1927 during the life of V.M. Ankylosing spondylitis. After graduating from the Gorsk Pedagogical Institute, he entered the graduate school of the Institute for the Study of the Brain, and from the end of 1930 he became its research assistant. The establishment of B.G. Ananyev as a scientist.

Department of Psychology, Institute for the Study of the Brain named after V.M. Bekhtereva carried out research, the results of which were published in 1934 in the collective monograph "General and technical horizons of secondary school students." To bring the work of the sector closer to the life of the school, a polytechnic office was opened - an experimental laboratory in the 154th Leningrad school. At the same time, an experimental complex (physiological, psychological and psychotechnical at the same time) laboratory was organized in the basic school No. 1 (head B. G. Ananiev). As a result of experiments, observations, the study of biographies, it was supposed to make forecasts for the development of individuality, to build a classification of characters, types of development.

It can be seen that B.G. Ananyev and in the work of his research group, the studies of V.M. Bekhterev at the Pedological Institute (longitudinal method) and A.F. Lazursky (the idea of classifying characters on an empirical basis in an inductive way) and, of course, the general idea of personality relations. Research laboratory of education, conducted under the guidance and program of B.G. Ananyev in 1933-1936, laid the foundation for his concept of personality.

A feature of the second cycle of research in the sector was a comprehensive coverage of sensory phenomena, the search for mechanisms for the intellectual mediation of sensations in connection with practical experience. In the course of B.G. Ananiev formulated a hypothesis about the specific significance of the pairing of the sense organs for spatial orientation, which his colleagues and students have been working on for many years. N. V. Kuzmina Foreword // Ananiev B.G. Selected psychological works: in 2 volumes. M .: Pedagogy, 1980. V.2. S.5-8. The main area of research in the sector in the second half of the 30s. there was the problem of sensory reflection. At the end of this period B.G. Ananiev formulated the idea that the study of functional connections is an important condition for a correct understanding of the laws of mental development.

In 1939, at the age of 32, he successfully defended his doctoral dissertation "Formation of Scientific Psychology in the USSR".

During the Great Patriotic War, all departments of the Brain Institute were involved in defense research. On the initiative of B.G. Ananyev in July 1941, special work was organized to study the perception of urban buildings from a height, which helped to protect many valuable objects of Leningrad from destruction. In early December 1941, by decision of a government commission, the employees of the Brain Institute, headed by the director V.P. Osipov were evacuated from besieged Leningrad, first to Kazan, and then to Samarkand. From Kazan B.G. Ananyev moved to Tbilisi, where he worked as the head of the psychopathological department of the evacuation hospital and was engaged in the restoration of speech and sensory functions.

In November 1943 he returned to Leningrad and began to work at the A.I. Herzen, where he organized a laboratory for the study of speech. The opening of the department and department of psychology at Leningrad University in 1944 laid the foundation for the university educational and research center of psychology, headed by B.G. Ananyev, who has already become a recognized leader of a large group of Leningrad psychologists. Together with him and a little later, R.A. Kanicheva, V.I. Kaufman, A.G. Kovalev, A.A. Lyublinskaya, V.N. Myasishchev, N.V. Oparina, S.I. Povarnin, A.A. Pressman, G.S. Roginsky, Yu.A. Samarin, N.A. Tikh, A.N. Shemyakin and others. The historical connection of the university psychological school with Bekhterev's direction was noted by B.G. Ananyev in an article dedicated to the 150th anniversary of Leningrad University. In 1951 he was appointed director of the Leningrad Scientific Research Institute of Pedagogy of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR.

Judging by the number of publications, this was the most productive time of his life. He simultaneously supervised research at the Research Institute of Pedagogy, taught and conducted scientific work at Leningrad State University, actively participated in the work of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR, being its corresponding member (since 1945), and then a full member (since 1955) and a member of the Presidium of the Academy; his outstanding work was highly appreciated by the state - in 1954 he was awarded the order of V.I. Lenin. However, a serious and prolonged illness made B.G. Ananyev to leave the Research Institute of Pedagogy, he returned to the university, where he became the head of the Department of Psychology.

The plans of the department in the first years of its existence included two problems, which were worked on not only by employees, but also by students. First, research was conducted on the problem of sensations, perceptions and representations. The main vector was the idea of a dialectical transition from sensation to thought.

The second direction of the department's work was focused on the problems of characterology. In the late 40s. B.G. Ananyev works on the characterology and self-awareness of the child, but then focuses on the first problem. Personality psychology became central in the scientific work of the department in the mid-1950s, when the department was headed by V.N. Myasishchev. Then the monographs of V.N. Myasishchev and A.G. Kovalev "Psychological characteristics of personality" in two volumes, published collections on the psychology of abilities, needs, etc.

As the leader of B.G. Ananyev was extremely business-like, he knew how to choose the main direction of collective work, arrange personnel taking into account abilities, he knew how to "highlight" the materials received by another person during discussion, so that they began to acquire significance, which the author himself was often not aware of.

The upbringing of like-minded people was served by his outstanding pedagogical talent, he truly loved young people, took care of his students, even when they became independent researchers. According to the testimony of Professor A.Ts. Puni, in the personality of B.G. Ananyev combined "high adherence to principles, exactingness (first of all to oneself), sometimes even ruthlessness, and at the same time amazing sensitivity, gentleness, almost in some cases tenderness to people, especially young, not yet very experienced, but promising workers , willingness to always come to their aid in word and deed "(from a letter to N.A. Loginova dated July 5, 1981).

The style of B.G. Ananyev was distinguished by a harmonious combination of theoretical training and education of practical skills. He appreciated not only a bright mind, but also golden hands. He also possessed the rare gift of an orator. His lectures, speeches, remarks were perceived as works of oratory and invariably captivated the audience. After one speech, he received a note from the audience, which he kept: "Your report has a negative side. He absolutely does not allow listening to the next one." In the speeches of B.G. Ananyev had no beauties, but there was a place for humor, an unexpected epithet. There was a sincere pathos in them, which inspired and convinced listeners and served to educate like-minded people. Any discussion with the participation of B.G. Ananyev was energetic, interesting and productive. He singled out a valuable idea of the speaker or interlocutor and developed it. He knew how to save the time of other people. If, for some reason, Boris Gerasimovich could not receive a visitor at the appointed hour, then he left the office and apologized to him, even if it was just a student.

Speaking about the organizational activities of B.G. Ananyev, one cannot but recall those major scientific events in which he played a leading role and which were of great importance not only for the formation and development of the university school and psychological science in Leningrad, but also for the entire Russian psychology. A major event in the life of post-war psychologists was the scientific conference of the country's universities on psychology, held in 1947 on the basis of the Leningrad University. B.G. Ananyev was the chairman of its organizing committee and opened the conference with a report "New ways of development of psychological science in the USSR." Loginova N.A. Characteristic features of the conceptual system of B.G. Ananyeva // Psychological journal. T.9. No. 1.1988. Pp. 149-158. After the first academic year, a psychological conference was held at the psychology department of Leningrad State University in early July 1945. On it B.G. Ananiev made two reports: "The Great Patriotic War and New Problems of Psychology" and "On the Psychological Theory of Sensations."

On the basis of Leningrad State University and the Leningrad branch of the Society of Psychologists of the USSR, all-Union scientific events were held more than once, which were held under the leadership or with the active participation of B.G. Ananyev: conferences on the problems of personality psychology (1956), on the problems of perception of space and spatial representations (1959), on the perception of space and time (1962), the 2nd All-Union Congress of the Society of Psychologists of the USSR (1963). B.G. Ananyev was one of the organizers of the XVIII International Psychological Congress in Moscow (1966) and directed the symposium "Perception of Space and Time" there.

Full organizational design of B.G. Ananyev happened during the formation of the Faculty of Psychology at Leningrad State University in 1966 (until 1967, B.F.Lomov was its dean, and then B.G. Ananiev). Bodalev A.A., Lomov B.F., Frishman E.Z. B.G. Ananiev - the most prominent Soviet psychologist // Ananiev B.G. Selected psychological works: in 2 volumes. M .: Pedagogy, 1980. V.1. S.5-12. The opening of the faculty meant new broad prospects for the implementation of B.G. Ananyev on the creation of a center here for the study of personality development at the stage of maturity, a kind of Human Institute.

The structure of the faculty with its departments and laboratories was supposed to reflect the structure of modern psychology in its close connection with related sciences. The birth of the faculty coincided with the beginning of those initiated by B.G. Ananyev complex human studies, traditional for Bekhterev's direction, but built according to the original Ananyev's program.

Not every scientist succeeds in creating an original and fruitful conceptual system. But only it can truly serve as the basis for the formation of a scientific school and programs arising from it.

The conceptual system is a broader and, moreover, personal education, in contrast to a scientific program. It is a picture of the world seen from the point of view of science. The conceptual system contains the results of specific scientific research, the fruits of philosophical reflections, intuitive insights and forebodings permeated with personal meaning. Only through intensive creative work is this wealth of knowledge and experiences verbalized, realized and objectified in the products of scientific work, in particular in scientific programs. Reconstruction of the mature conceptual system of B.G. Ananyev allows us to conclude about his adherence to the anthropological principle, which is the main feature of his scientific credo.

The core of this system was the idea of the integrity of a person (individuality) and his development, the idea of maturity as a period of dynamic changes, including changes in psychophysiological functions and their relationships. It was this idea that served as a platform for the consolidation of university psychologists.

The honor of creating the school rightfully belongs to B.G. Ananyev. He knew how to unite people, inspire, encourage them to intense and joyful work. Although these studies were not completed due to the death of B.G. Ananyev (May 18, 1972), the team still managed to achieve significant results, without which it is difficult to imagine the modern developmental psychology of adults and the psychology of development in general. On the basis of the data obtained, the heterogeneous structure of psychophysiological functional development was proved, presented in the form of branched correlation constellations of intellectual, neurodynamic and somatic indicators of age status.

Comprehensive studies have confirmed the theoretical concepts of the school of B.G. Ananyeva on the structure of intelligence. Numerous connections of intellectual functions with somatic processes indicated the dependence of information processing on the energy of the organism, in other words, the dependence of intellectual activity on vital activity.

Large-scale studies of intelligence, begun in the 1960s-1970s, were continued at the Faculty of Psychology by a large group of scientists, starting in 1990. These studies were the logical development of a new problem for Russian psychology - intellectual potential.

Comprehensive research laid the foundations of psychological acmeology. As it was found, contrary to traditional views, moments of stabilization in maturity are more rare than moments of increase and decrease in the level of psychophysiological functions; each age phase corresponds to a certain "pattern" of correlations between psychophysiological and intellectual functions, neurodynamic and somatic properties of an individual. Based on the identification of the dynamics of functions and the change in "patterns", it is possible to construct a scientific periodization of the development of an adult.

1.2 The role of B.G. Ananyeva in the history of the development of Russian psychology

B.G. Ananiev was one of the first Russian psychologists to study the history of Russian psychological thought in the pre-revolutionary period. The significance of this kind of research can hardly be overestimated, since at the initial stages of the development of Soviet psychology, due to the dominant ideological attitudes in it, there was no interest in this page in the history of Russian psychology. At the same time, as the works of B.G. Ananyev and other researchers who followed him to the study of pre-revolutionary psychology, namely to the works of Russian thinkers and scientists of the late 18th - early 20th centuries. the formulation and development of many fundamental problems related to the mental world of a person, its formation and development, ascends. The study of this problem made it possible to close the "blank spots" in the history of Russian psychology, to reveal the preconditions and origins of its formation as a scientific discipline, as well as the patterns and logic of its development.

In his work "Essays on the History of Russian Psychology in the 18th and 19th Centuries", published in 1947, B.G. Ananiev rightly noted that in our country there were no "systematic works on the history of Russian psychology" published that would characterize the state of development of various problems in this branch of knowledge. His book largely filled this gap. It examines in detail various aspects of the problem under study: discloses the psychological views of well-known Russian scientists and public figures of the pre-revolutionary period; the origins of the formation of scientific psychology in Russia are revealed; a comparative chronological analysis of the development of Western European and Russian psychology is given; the role of the experiment in the development of psychological knowledge is shown.

Ananyev points out that the great traditions of all advanced Russian science - materialistic, democratic and humanistic - act as the ideological and methodological foundation of psychological science in Russia, which determines the entire course of its development and the achievements of domestic scientists.

The depth of analysis, objectivity and accuracy in the coverage of the history of Russian psychology, the evidence of judgments and conclusions characterize B.G. Ananyev as an excellent connoisseur of Russian scientific thought in general and psychological in particular, a high-class analyst, capable of briefly and at the same time on a large scale, to present a huge amount of factual material.

He examines the problems of the history of Russian psychology against the background of the social history of Russia, taking into account the national characteristics and cultural traditions of Russian science.

B.G. Ananiev rightly pointed out that the history of the development of psychology began long before the 18th century. In this regard, he spoke about the need to refer to Old Russian folklore, since in it - in fairy tales and epics - folk wisdom was reflected and recorded. The philosophy of the practical life of the people enshrined in them is of great interest for reconstructing the history of the formation of psychological ideas and concepts. The study of the ethical and psychological aspect of the folk epic is also of interest. It is in it that the humanism of the Russian people is revealed, a peculiar understanding of the personality, its abilities and character is presented.

During the period when Slavic writing arose, literature appeared that reflected philosophical and psychological ideas that were formed on the basis of Russian culture. Much in them was borrowed from the moral and philosophical instructions of religious leaders.

It so happened that in his life B.G. Ananyev put forward four research programs, but none of them was fully realized during his lifetime, as planned. Ananiev B.G. Selected psychological works: in 2 volumes. M .: Pedagogy, 1980. V.1.230 p. Vol.2.288 p. Indeed, the study of character genesis in schoolchildren, begun in the first half of the 1930s, had to be curtailed after the devastating resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on pedology. The work of the psychology sector of the Institute of the Brain on the problem of sensory cognition was interrupted by the war and resumed already on the basis of the psychological department of Leningrad University. Educational Psychology Program in the 50s. was not fully implemented due to B.G. Ananyeva. On the way to new scientific achievements, in the midst of complex research, Boris Gerasimovich was gone. But there was so much that was done that would be enough for several human lives.

And only now we begin to understand that a person, fragile in appearance, possessed an iron will, an excellent gift for foreseeing the development of Russian psychology in specific historical conditions, insight and intuition, outstanding organizational skills, the power of persuasion and magnetic influence on people, in excess of all those, what we call the social potential of a person. He was and remains for us an outstanding Personality, tightly woven into hundreds and thousands of individual destinies, a classic of XX century psychology, who paved the way for the psychology of the XXI century.

One of the striking features of B.G. Ananyev as a scientist, undoubtedly, is the ability to see in the particular manifestations of human activity all the complexity of human nature. If we turn to his fundamental works on perception, then it is easy to make sure that these are not narrowly focused studies, but broad generalizations of the most important data of psychological science known at that time.

Psychological science in our country, unfortunately, was forced to experience a situation, if not unnecessary, then at least secondary. However, thanks to such scientists as B.G. Ananiev, Russian psychology was able not only to preserve, but also to develop a scientific base, which made it possible to enter the main directions of world psychology. B.G. Ananyev understood that psychology as a concrete science can develop successfully only if it relies on the sphere of practical application, i.e. have scientifically grounded methods and means of human life and activity.

B.G. Ananyev, being recognized as the head of one of the major psychological schools in Leningrad and the head of university psychologists, gave way to life in this city for such new directions as engineering psychology and social psychology, which played a role in the formation of modern Russian psychological science. It was at the University (then Leningrad) that the first laboratories were formed: engineering psychology (1959, head of laboratory B.F. Lomov), social psychology (1962, head of laboratory E.S. Kuzmin), differential psychology and anthropology (1963 , head of laboratory B.G. Ananiev).

Paying tribute to the sectoral psychological disciplines and directions, B.G. Ananyev has always emphasized the importance of developing general psychological concepts that received a real scientific basis in applied research. In this respect, the research reflected by B.G. Ananiev in his work "Man as a subject of knowledge", where the position of psychology as a scientific and methodological center of human knowledge was substantiated, it was shown that the development of not only "human studies", but also all areas of scientific knowledge and practice is associated with psychological problems. Consequently, for every person for a normal life in human society, as well as general literacy, a certain psychological competence is necessary.

From the standpoint of today, in the works of B.G. Ananyev, the idea is quite clearly traced that psychology is not a science about the psyche as a property of the brain, but about a person, where the psychic as the essence of a person and human society appears in the integration of phylogenesis, ontogenesis, socialization, the history of mankind in their unity with the essence and development of the Universe.

Thus, we can conclude that Boris Gerasimovich Ananiev made a significant contribution to the development of Russian psychology in the way that many methodological problems that are of fundamental importance for Russian psychological science were posed, formulated, developed in his works. These works largely determined the subsequent development of psychology. B.G. Ananyev have clearly demonstrated the advantages of an integrated, interdisciplinary approach to the problem of man, allowed psychology to really become a science of man in all its complexity and versatility.

2. The concept of the personality of B.G. Ananyeva

We can say that if Ananyev notes as Rubinstein's merit the definition of the integrative essence of personality developed by him, then Ananyev's merit turned out to be the inclusion of the personality in the integral system of human knowledge. Here, the anthropological, historical, ontogenetic, age-related, and biographical aspects of the consideration of the problem of personality are present in unity.

He turns his critical pathos, quite rightly, against the tendency of Russian psychologists, characteristic of the 1950s and 1960s, to concentrate (and limit themselves) around the problems of the personality structure, "abstracted from the real time course of its life cycle." Ananiev B.G. On the problems of modern human science. Moscow: Nauka, 1977, 380 p. At the same time, it should be noted that with extraordinary scrupulousness he analyzed practically all the views of Russian psychologists on the structure of personality. He, being one of the initiators of the most important symposium on the problem of personality, took an active part in the discussion about its structure. Thus, the historical, biographical and other dimensions in his concept appear as a temporary dimension of the personality. Undoubtedly, the priority of introducing the problems of the life path into the domestic theory of personality belongs to Rubinstein (1935), but detailed elaboration of the problems of the "human life cycle", its various periodizations, grows in Ananyev into a generalized formulation of the problem of time in personality psychology. Ananiev made a detailed critical analysis of the concept of the life path of S. Buhler and on this basis showed that life corresponds to the hierarchical principle. Wishing to emphasize this circumstance, Ananyev develops an understanding of individuality precisely as a person's achievement of the highest level of development of his essence and his whole life. However, unlike Rubinstein, Ananiev connects the concept of the subject not with the path of life, but with activity, communication, cognition.

Unlike most Russian psychologists, Ananiev considers the social determination of the personality not abstractly (social relations were interpreted by Rubinstein and Leontiev in this way), but from the sociological positions already formed by that time. That is why he, defining, like many others, the personality as a social individual, concretizes this definition through the social situations of its development, status, lifestyle, socio-psychological and other conditions, up to demographic problems. He rightly notes that in this perspective, the personality acts as an object of social development. In this case, the quality of the subject coincides with the actual psychological definition of personality as a system of relationships, attitudes, motives, values, etc. But, in turn, for psychological science, a person is also an object (subject) of cognition. In addition, after conducting a proper sociological analysis of the contradictions of capitalist society, Ananyev comes to the conclusion that they lead to a certain "separation" of the personality from the properties of the subject, i.e. expanding the structure of a person (add in general, due to the action of alienation). Ananiev B.G. Man as a subject of knowledge. L .: Leningrad State University, 1968, 339 p. But this is already a different basis for determining the essence of the subject, associated with the possibility-impossibility of realizing one's creative essence in certain events, situations, in concrete-historical (true-capitalist) relations. Thus, Ananyev lacks an understanding of the subject as a subject of the life path, which was proposed by Rubinstein practically in the same fifties. This understanding presupposes the disclosure of the dependence of the life path on the personality itself. In this case, we are not talking about a biographical approach, which includes individual differences in the way of life (as variations) in a single periodization of life, but about the subjective one, in which the essential characteristics of the person's way of life are revealed.

However, Ananyev, proposing not a traditionally dynamic, but a historical, biographical understanding of life time, revealed the most important characteristics from the point of view of personality development - the start, the culmination of the highest achievements in the chosen activity and the finish, showed the dependence of the culmination on the moment of the start, and the start on the history of upbringing personality. Thus, the main idea of S. Buhler was concretized, striving to show life as not an accidental, unique fate of a person, but a natural history. Bodalev A.A. The main contribution of B.G. Ananyev in psychological science // Ananiev B.G. Psychology and problems of human science. M .: Publishing house "Institute of Practical Psychology"; Voronezh: NPO "MODEK", 1996. P.5-17. But at the same time, he connected these phases - mainly - with the subject of activity (and not the life path as a whole), believing that “to determine the main moments of the formation, stabilization and finish of the personality is possible only by comparing the shifts in many parameters of human social development: state, economic situation, marital status, reconciliation, consolidation or separation of social functions (roles, nature of values and their reassessment in certain historical circumstances), changes in the environment of development and communication, conflict situations and solving life problems, the feasibility or unfulfillment of a life plan, success or failure-triumph or defeat in the fight. " As noted, in our opinion, Ananyev's desire to concretize the concept of a person's life cycle in the categories of sociology as the most progressive direction in that period, and thereby overcome the abstract nature of the principle of social determination of the individual, express this determination in categories close to the personality. He complements the typification inherent in the sociological approach with individualization. However, in this case he means individualization. ontogenetic evolution: "a very important direction of the influence of a person's life path (biography) on his ontogenetic evolution is the ever-increasing individualization of this evolution." Thus, in our opinion, in the concept of Ananyev, the relationship of the life path 1) as a biography, i.e. the actual individual history, life path (or cycle) 2) as a socially typical process, including stages common to all people, and 3) the ontogenetic process of human evolution.

Very significant, as noted, is Ananyev's role in the discussion on the problem of personality structure, which turned out to be the main one by the end of the sixties and became the main subject of discussion at the 1969 personality symposium. In presenting the views on the personality of the representatives of the Georgian school, we did not deliberately dwell on the position of V.T. Norakidze, since it was Ananyev who noted his contribution to the problem of personality structure on the basis of empirical studies of the role of a fixed attitude in character formation. Ananiev compares A.G. Kovaleva, V.N. Myasishcheva, K.K. Platonov and S.L. Rubinstein, revealing their differences, contradictions and commonality. "Contradictory views reflect the objective complexity of the mutual transitions between the integration and differentiation of the phenomena of personality development." Loginova N.A. Characteristic features of the conceptual system of B.G. Ananyeva // Psychological journal. T.9. No. 1.1988. Pp. 149-158.

Based on Rubinstein's idea that the principle of integration is fundamental for the development of personality, Ananyev comes to the conclusion that "development is indeed an increase in scale and levels of integration - the formation of large" blocks ", systems or structures, the synthesis of which at a certain moment in a person's life appears as the most general structure of his personality "(ibid.). But at the same time, in his opinion, the development of personality is also "an ever-increasing differentiation of its psychophysiological functions, processes, states and personal properties, commensurate with progressive integration" (ibid.), I.e. there is a convergent and divergent relationship between differentiation and integration.

It is essential that Ananyev imperceptibly moves from the question of the structure of the personality (even if, according to Platonov, functional) to the question of the development of the personality and thus goes into a completely different plane. We believe that the discussion on the structure of personality was not very fruitful precisely because in all points of view (except Myasishchev, as we will see later), the structure itself was considered as an abstraction of the intra-individual organization of the personality. Without accentuating the problem of the relationship between the intra- and interindividual, Ananiev nevertheless actually takes the discussion beyond the framework of the question of the structure of the intraindividual. Ananiev B.G. Man as a subject of knowledge. L .: Leningrad State University, 1968, 339 p. The exclusivity and advantage of Myasishchev's concept also consisted in the fact that the concept of "relationship", on the basis of which he defined personality, was an inextricable link between the intra- and interindividual. In Myasishchev's concept, personality is immediately defined as a system, and not just a structure, and, moreover, carrying not only integrating and differentiating tendencies, which Ananyev drew attention to, but integrating and disintegrating (i.e., contradictory) tendencies.

The presence of internal contradictions was also noted by A.G. Kovalev, connecting them with the uneven development of individual personality structures - between claims and objective possibilities, between the sensual and logical in the process of reflection (feeling and reason), between natural data and acquired personality traits. The limitation of Ananyev's understanding of personality manifested itself, in our opinion, in the fact that he did not pay attention to this aspect of the concepts of Kovalev and Myasishchev, who sought to identify contradictions in personal organization (although he noted the importance of analyzing the phenomena of panic, stress, frustration, life conflicts). Having undertaken grandiose empirical studies of the relationship between various mental properties and neoplasms, he basically found himself within the framework of the correlation principle. (Although he himself theoretically noted that the structure of the personality is built on two-subordinate (or hierarchical) and coordination principles).

Summing up, we can say that the concept of Ananyev's personality, due to his comprehensive scientific approach as a whole, turned out to be the most multifaceted, multifaceted, which made it possible to combine many private or incomparable concepts. He worked on the conceptual aspect of the problem of personality in the continuum of the concepts "subject", "personality", "individual", "individuality". The personality appeared both as included in society, and as developing in the ontogenetic cycle and life path and as a contemporary of its era, etc. Thanks to this, the concept of Ananyev's personality has not lost its heuristic significance to this day.

Conclusion

Summing up, we can say that the subject of the psychological concept of B.G. Ananyeva stands for individuality, including the individual, personality and subject. The main tasks solved by this concept:

1) Study of a person as a whole, as an individual;

2) Research of personality structure;

3) study of the ontogenesis of individuality.

Definition of personality: "Personality is a component of individuality, its characteristics as a social individual, object and subject of the historical process. Personality is the" pinnacle "of the entire structure of human properties. Development of personality is directed by the development of individuality.

B.G. Ananyev's concept is based on theoretical and experimental studies of individual human development in the system of synthetic human knowledge. According to Ananiev, human evolution is a single process in all its multiplicity of states and properties, determined by the historical conditions of a person's life in society.

As an open system, man, being in constant interaction with nature and society, carries out the individual development of his human properties in the personality with its social ties and the subject of activity, transforming reality. But man is also a closed system due to the internal interconnectedness of the properties of personality, individual and subject, which constitute the core of his personality (self-consciousness and "I"). The uniqueness of individuality is manifested in the transition of internal tendencies and potencies into the products of the creative activity of the individual, which changes the surrounding world and its societies, development.

Ananyev psychologist personality concept

Note that the consideration of the mental within the framework of Ananiev's approach made it possible to go beyond the framework of psychophysiological parallelism and, avoiding reductionism, "fit" the psyche into the "scientific picture of man." It is in this that the practical value of the concept of B.G. Ananyeva.

Bibliography

Posted on Allbest.ru

1. Ananiev B.G. On some issues of the Marxist-Leninist reconstruction of psychology // Psychology, vol. IV. Issue 3-4.1931. S.325-344.

2. Ananiev B.G. Psychology and problems of human science. M .: Publishing house "Institute of Practical Psychology"; Voronezh: NPO MODEK, 1996, 384 p.

3. Ananiev B.G. On the problems of modern human science. Moscow: Nauka, 1977, 380 p.

4. Ananiev B.G. Man as a subject of knowledge. L .: Leningrad State University, 1968, 339 p.

5. Ananiev B.G. Selected psychological works: in 2 volumes. M .: Pedagogy, 1980. V.1.230 p. Vol.2.288 p.

6. Ananiev B.G. On the methods of modern psychology // Psychodiagnostic methods in a comprehensive longitudinal study of students. L .: Leningrad State University, 1976.S. 13-35.

7. Bodalev A.A. The main contribution of B.G. Ananyev in psychological science // Ananiev B.G. Psychology and problems of human science. M .: Publishing house "Institute of Practical Psychology"; Voronezh: NPO "MODEK", 1996. P.5-17.

8. Bodalev A.A., Lomov B.F., Frishman E.Z. B.G. Ananiev - the most prominent Soviet psychologist // Ananiev B.G. Selected psychological works: in 2 volumes. M .: Pedagogy, 1980. V.1. S.5-12.

9. Kuzmina N.V. Foreword // Ananiev B.G. Selected psychological works: in 2 volumes. M .: Pedagogy, 1980. V.2. S.5-8.

10. Loginova N.A. Characteristic features of the conceptual system of B.G. Ananyeva // Psychological journal. T.9. No. 1.1988. Pp. 149-158.

11. Lomov B.F. Boris Gerasimovich Ananiev - scientist, teacher, organizer of science // Experimental and Applied Psychology. Issue 1. L .: Leningrad State University, 1968.S. 3-8.

12. Mazilov V.A. The problem of the method in psychology // Psychotechnology in social work. Issue 3. Yaroslavl, 1997.S. 24-42.

...