via the more and more increasing individualization of this evolution" (Ananiev, 1977, p. 165). But "Individuality" is not only individual differences. It is a holistic structure, essentially individual by nature, which emerges in the course of human life activities, bringing to harmony human tendencies and potentials. It turns to be the cause and the result of the integration of natural and cultural development.
According to Ananiev, human psychic development manifests itself in three expressly separated planes:
• Ontogenetic evolution of psycho-physiological functions (Man and Nature bias).
• Life journey – personality history (Man and Society bias).
• Development of man's activities as an agent of labour, cognition and communication (Man and Civilization bias).
Thus the process of human development is biased by the laws of Nature, Society and Civilization, relatively independently and potentially in contradiction. There is no Universal Law of human development, there is only a number of relatively independent factors, and their influence is mediated and integrated by the human individuality to constitute a holistic structure of the human psyche. It is the individuality which determines the vector, direction and route of development. Individuality from early age manifests itself by refracting and combining Nature, Culture and Civilization. In mature age, the individuality factor becomes dominant, determining individual development of psychophysiological functions in adulthood.
A human being in Ananiev's theory stands out as, first, a historically concrete type, specific in its psychic organization in different moments of history, as Vygotsky stressed and second, as a self-determining creator of one's own self in the tradition of Rubinstein.
Ananiev's theory also stands out for its' humanistic appeal. Being mainly concerned with striking social effects on human biology, he was very well aware of the natural limits of this flexibility. He believed the main practical aim of psychological science is to help the individual in seeking his unique way of coping with the situation and himself, becoming the master of his own life and obtaining individual harmony.
Ananiev's theory remains mainly unknown to the scientific community outside Russia. At the same time, Ananiev's methodology and theory seem to be fruitful even nowadays within the intensively developing areas of the world's psychological science. Among the areas of research and topical issues may be named, alongside the impact of personality on psycho-physiological functions, the areas of life-span human development, analysis of development in various age periods from the point of view of the holistic context of human life, and age dynamics in adulthood.
Conclusion
Activity theory is the trend which shaped the development of psychological science in Russia throughout the Soviet period. It is based on the ideas of the procreative role of vital activity of a living being for psyche formation. Its representation in English-speaking science is depleted by not enough light being shed upon the complex and dialectic nature of the trend. A general tendency to unambiguous reduction of AT to the theory of Leontiev – however brilliant the latter is, and however significant is its impact on Russian psychology – impoverishes the creative potentialities and capabilities of the trend.
Foundations of AT were laid by Rubinstein and Vygotsky Leontiev developed and supplemented the ideas of his predecessors. However, Leontiev neglected the ideas of the key role of internal factors of activity which determine the course of individual interaction with the environment. These ideas of Rubinstein and Vygotsky were developed and elaborated by other Soviet psychologists, less well-known outside Russia, first of all in the works of B. G. Ananiev.
The key issue in the works of Ananiev was the impact of personality on psycho-physiological functions – in this aspect he carried on the agenda of Vygotsky and Rubinstein from which the Leontiev school moved to the analysis of outer activity.
The reasons why Leontiev's theory was dominant in the literature, and there were virtually no open discussions in 1930s and in 1950s concerning the discrepancies between his views and those of his predecessors, as well as the reasons why in the 1960–1970s Ananiev's theory was overshadowed by Leontiev's work, can be found in the political context of the development of science in a totalitarian state.
Leontiev contributed much to Activity Theory, but his contribution is not all AT, only part of the trend. Bringing to the light theories less straightforward and less simplifying, might reveal new perspectives and potentialities for the integration of AT into the international mainstream.
Литература
1. Абульханова А. К., Брушлинский А. В., Воловикова М. И. Российский менталитет: вопросы психологической теории и практики. М: Изд-во ИП РАН, 1997.
2. Абульханова-Славская К. А. О субъекте психической деятельности. М., 1973.
3. Абульханова-Славская К. А. Диалектика человеческой жизни. М., 1977.
4. Абульханова-Славская К. А. Деятельность и психология личности. М., 1980.
5. Абульханова-Славская К. А. Активность и сознание личности как субъекта деятельности // Психология личности в социалистическом обществе. Ч. 1: Активность и развитие личности. М, 1989. С. 110–134.
6. Абульханова-Славская К. А. Личностная регуляция времени // Психология личности в социалистическом обществе. Ч. 2: Личность и ее жизненный путь. М., 1990. С. 114–129.
7. Абульханова-Славская К. А. Стратегии человеческой жизни. М., 1991.
8. Абульханова-Славская К. А. Социальное мышление личности: проблемы и стратегии исследования// Психол. журнал. 1994. № 4. С. 39–55.
9. Абульханова-Славская К. А. Типология личности и гуманистический подход // Гуманистические проблемы психологической теории / Под ред. К. А. Абульхановой и А. В. Брушлинского. М, 1995. С. 27–48.
10. Абульханова-Славская К. А. Психология и сознание личности. М.-Воронеж, 1999.
11. Абульханова-Славская К.А., Брушлинский А. В. Философско-психологическая концепция С. Л. Рубинштейна. М., 1989.
12. Аверин В. А. Психология личности. СПб., 1999.
13. Акинщикова Г. И. Антропология. Л., 1974.
14. Активность и жизненная позиция личности. М., 1988.
15. Актуальные вопросы психологии личности. М., 1988.
16. Александров И. О. Формирование структуры индивидуального знания. М: Изд-во ИП РАН, 2006.
17. Аллахвердов В. М. Опыт теоретической психологии. СПб., 1993.
18. Аллахвердов В. М., Методологическое путешествие по океану бессознательного к таинственному острову сознания. СПб., 2003.
19. Алмаев И. А. Элементы психологической теории значения. М.: Изд-во ИП РАН, 2006.
20. Ананьев Б. Г. Психология чувственного познания. М., 1960.
21. Ананьев Б. Г. Человек как предмет познания. Л., 1969.
22. Ананьев Б. Г. О проблемах современного человекознания. М., 1977.
23. Ананьев Б. Г. Избранные психологические труды:
