not meet the requirements of the discourse. One can agree with A. V. Yurevich when he states that «hidden» from the West, Soviet psychology was more interesting for the international community than contemporary, «wide open to the West», but the reason for the presence or lack of interest is not in secrecy or openness, it is in the quality of production that we show to the West.
Many of those who were oriented to Western theories in the 90's today are seeking new ideals.
However, there are many examples of successful integration of «Pro-Western Developments» to the international science, especially those from leading universities, and as for the evaluation of the quality of work of a scientist in respect to "Pro-Western Developments", publications in international journals seem an appropriate criterion.
The other part of the professional community, which we have designated here as «National Authentic Developments», is rapidly growing since the beginning of the XXI с Christian Orthodox, Spiritual or Philosophical psychology develops the traditions rooted in the pre-Soviet period of Russian psychology. This is an entirely authentic trend, closely related to Russian culture, focused in practices on a vast Russian market, based on Russian authors and appealing to the Russian mentality.
Representatives of this group show no globalist tendencies, counterglobalist tendencies are strong.
Publications in foreign journals, of course, are no adequate indicator of the quality of work of these scientists, and the necessity of a «breakthrough» into the mainstream for them it is far from obvious.
At the same time, in the long term it seems quite possible. It is well known that representatives of Russian Spiritual and Philosophical thought, who had been expelled from the country in 1922 (N. A. Berdjaev, M. I. Vladislavlev, etc.), had a significant influence on the development of world science, in particular, on the development of existentialism.
Successors the ATtrend. What determines the globalist and counterglobalist tendencies in this group of scientists?
Let us consider their reasons "for" integration.
First of all, it is this trend that meets the expectations of foreign colleagues. It is recognized that for western colleagues Russian psychology is, above all, represented by the works of classics of the Soviet period: "… the representation of Russian/Soviet psychology in the West… can be assessed as the idea that Russian psychology is the works of such luminaries as Vygotsky and Luria" (Yurevich, 2009, с 79).
And it is to this trend that there remains a steady and even growing interest in the international science. The analysis of literature indicates that as time passes, the interest in international psychology to Vygotsky's work is only growing, as reflected in the growth of index of citations of his work. According to this indicator in recent years Vygotsky moved ahead of many classics of foreign psychology (Yurevich, 2009, Karpov, 2005). The interest in classics of Soviet psychology can promote an interest in the work of successors.
Thus, first, foreign colleagues are willing to hear scientists working in the AT trend. Secondly – the latter have something to say. These Russian psychologists have every reason to be involved in the dialogue with the West.
Behind the iron curtain psychological science was lively developing and many talented scientists contributed to it. The ideas of L. S. Vygotsky and I. P. Pavlov inspired new theoretical reasoning and empirical research alongside with ideas still unknown to the international community. Classical theories of Soviet psychology, known in the West, first of all the theory of L. S. Vygotsky, were developing on the native soil, and this development was different than in the West.
In addition to the development of the theories well-known to foreign colleagues there are other theories, which remain obscure for the West. First of all, I would name here B. G. Ananiev (Ananiev, 1961; 1968; 1977). B. G. Ananiev's theory remains obscure for the foreign scientific community. His name is not mentioned in modern foreign encyclopedias or journals. Few of his works that were translated into foreign languages, were duly understood and appreciated by the psychologists' community because of the specific notional and conceptual structure used by B. G. Ananiev. The conceptual structure of the theory, the issues discussed, do not directly correlate with the categorical structure of the modern international psychology, hence, this theory cannot be understood by Western scientists without special efforts. At the same time, B. G. Ananiev's methodology and theory seem to be fruitful within the intensively developing areas of the world's psychological science provided the categorical system he used would be adequately explained (Mironenko, 2007a; 2009). Among such areas of research and topical issues, may be named personality impact on psycho-physiological functions, life-span human development and age dynamics of psycho-physiological functions in maturity.
Thus, the AT trend seems to be a welcomed contribution to the mainstream.
Would this integration be useful for Russian science?
I dare say that AT approach can keep on developing only if it is integrated into the mainstream. There is no future for the development of the AT but in the bosom of international science. I believe Russian psychology is now lacking every type of resources and social demand to provide for isolated development of the AT trend in Russia.
Perhaps we are the last generation that has been taught to understand those texts, who masters that language, that conceptual apparatus. After us the layer thins rapidly. Are there many among Russian psychologists wishing to study AT approach today? I do not believe that best students queue to study AT even in the prime universities which have preserved the teaching staff mastering the theory and methodology of the AT approach. This trend was actual in another country with a different culture and a different mentality, in different universities.
If we do not ensure integration of the AT developments into the mainstream, the concepts that have not yet been integrated are likely to share the fate of artifacts of a dead civilization. I believe that the integration it is a matter of professional viability for scientists
