Repressions and political persecutions of psychologists followed as a result of their failure to accomplish both unrealistic tasks set by the Soviet government. These repressions "interrupted" the development of applied and practical psychology in Soviet Russia for many decades. Vygotsky, who was closely connected with practical work, was blamed for ideological sabotage. Cultural-Historical theory was labeled "a pseudoscientific, reactionary, anti-marxist and hostile theory" (Leontiev et al, 2005; Luria, 1994). Henceforth, works by Vygotsky were not published in the USSR until 1956, when his "Intellectual processes and speech" was re-published. Moreover, books by Vygotsky were destroyed in the libraries in 1936. And only in 1982, the edition of six volumes of works by Vygotsky, mainly manuscripts from archives unpublished before, was started. His early death in 1934 from tuberculosis, which he refused to treat, is often interpreted as a sort of a suicide[20] (Leontiev et al., 2005).
At the beginning of the 1930s the normal pace of collaborative work of Vygotsky – Luria – Leontiev at the Psychological Institute in Moscow ceased. In 1931 the Psychological Institute and the department of Psychology in MGU were closed, and teaching of psychology was stopped. It turned out to be necessary to look for another place to work. A good chance was an invitation to Charkhov, a city in the Ukrainian republic of the USSR. The three scientists took the invitation but only Leontiev moved to Kharkhov totally, and it is there that "Leontiev's" school began (the period of the so called "Kharkov school"). Luria was continuously travelling between Moscow and Kharkhov Vygotsky's presence in Kharkov was rather scarce; he spent more time in Moscow.
At this complicated moment a rupture between Vygotsky and Leontiev occurred. This fact is generally acknowledged by all biographers, though the exact reasons and motives remain obscure. It is generally acknowledged that this rupture was caused by serious theoretical disagreement alongside personal matters (Leontiev et al., 2005).
The hypothesis concerning the former can be based on analysis of some private letters of the two people and on memoirs.
We can assume that it was the time when Leontiev entered on his own road, developing ideas of Vygotsky in his own way, the way which was never fully approved by Vygotsky himself. In his autobiography published in 1999 (Leontiev, 1999), Leontiev wrote: "During this period I directed a number of experimental research projects based already on new theoretical positions which I had developed in concern of the problem of activity".
Vygotsky took hard the collapse of the unity of adherents of socio-cultural theory. In a private letter to Leontiev from August 7th 1933 (Leontiev et al., 2005) Vygotsky wrote: "…as a matter of fact, your definitive departure to Kharkov is our heavy, crushing failure…"
Regarding the difference in their views, it was perhaps best summarized by P. J. Galperin, a younger colleague of Vygotsky and Leontiev, who, remembering the Kharkov period, stressed that Leontiev's doctrine "has led to essential change in the focus of research: Vygotsky focused on the influence of the higher (social) mental functions on the development of natural mental functions and practical activities of a child, while Leontiev focused on the leading part of external instrumental activity in the development of mental activity, in consciousness development" (Galperin, 1983, p. 241)[21].
Vygotsky points out that external activity is inseparable from inner mental activity. Any external operation is the result of a play of internal recourses. Explaining the importance of the "social situation of development", Vygotsky emphasizes that an infant is an active participant of the latter. First, growing, the child changes the situation by his actions. Second, his perception of the social situation is transformed under the influence of his internal attitudes and life plans. Vygotsky's fundamental conclusion is that the "main path" of development is not a gradual socialization introduced into the child from outside, but a gradual individualization that occurs on the basis of the internal activity of the child.
It should be noted also that in the letter which Vygotsky wrote to Leontiev, cited above, there are the words: "The inner bears the impact of the outer, but, of course, the former is not determined by the latter entirely". This seems much in tune with the Rubinstein disagreement with Leontiev.
Was there a disagreement between A. N. Leontiev and his predecessors? A. N. Leontiev and S. L. Rubinstein
After the repressions of the 1930s, strange as it might seem, World War II turned out to be a time of most fruitful and intensive development for Soviet psychology. The necessity to take part in the struggle against fascism which united all Soviet people, the need for psychological knowledge to be applied for war purposes, as well as for rehabilitation of wounded soldiers, and a great amount of unique empirical data – all these contributed to facilitate the development of psychology. New advanced theoretical approaches appeared such as the neuropsychological theory of Luria based on ideas of Vygotsky, and a theory of individual development in adulthood by B. G. Ananiev.
During the war ideological pressure in society eased, and psychological theory and practices were permitted to grow. In Moscow State University a department of Psychology was opened in 1942. To chair it Sergey L. Rubinstein was invited from Leningrad. He also headed the research Institute of Psychology of MStU.
Rubinstein was a highly educated man. Son of a jurist from Odessa, after graduating from secondary school with a gold medal in 1908, he went to Germany for higher education. In 1914 he graduated from Marburg University, where he attended the lectures of Hermann Cohen and Paul Natorp, and in the same year he defended at Marburg University a Ph.D. thesis in Philosophy. When the First World War began he returned to Russia.
At the beginning of the 1940s, Rubinstein occupied all the key positions in Soviet psychology: he chaired the department of psychology of Moscow State University; he headed the Institute of psychology of MStU and the Department of psychology of the Institute
