Activity Theory for the De-Structuralized Modernity (original) (raw)

Abstract

The present paper discusses perspectives of Activity Theory (AT) in the context of contemporary globalizing world, describing which we refer to the notion “De-structuralized modernity” (Sorokin and Froumin 2020). Radical changes in everyday life challenge social sciences and humanities. Approaches are in demand, which have the potential to comprehend the changing human étant and éntre. We argue that Activity Theory has the potential to face these challenges. Leontiev’s AT grounds on the idea of qualitatively new mental features arising to deal with novel environmental challenges, which is much in line with J.M. Baldwin reasoning on evolution. AT also offers a method to prognosis the upcoming neoplasms. In the same time, applying classics of AT to the current reality, “De-structuralized modernity”, entails the need for new theoretical elaborations of the latter, stemming from the radical transformation of the relations between individual and socio-cultural environments. A unique societal context emerges on the global level, which, on the one hand, requires individual to adapt constantly to changing socio-cultural reality, and, on the other hand, dramatically expands his/her potential for proactive actorhood transforming surrounding structures. We argue that the major and novel challenge for the individual is that maintaining the integrity and coherence of the a) Self-identity and b) system of links with the socio-cultural environment - in their dynamics and unity, has become a qualitatively different issue, much more complicated and problematic than ever before. The notion of “culture” has particular relevance and importance in this context because it allows grasping simultaneously two dimensions in their dynamic dialectical interrelations. First, the “internal” (“subjective”, “in the minds”) and “external” (“objective”, material and institutional environment) realities. Second, individual (“micro”) and societal (“macro”) scales of human activities. Discussing the ways to understand these dynamics, we dispute the popular “constitutive view” on personality and refer to the concept of the “ontological shift” (Mironenko and Sorokin [2018](/article/10.1007/s12124-020-09587-4#ref-CR27 "Mironenko, I. A., & Sorokin, P. S. (2018). Seeking for the definition of “culture”: Current concerns and their implications. A comment on Gustav Jahoda’s article “Critical reflections on some recent definitions of “culture””. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 52(2), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-018-9425-y

            .")). We also highlight how technological advancements change and “expand” human nature making it capable to deal with the outlined new tasks.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. In the international discourse Russian word “субъект” (Subjekt) is often translated as subject, and “субъективность_” (Subjektivity) as subjectivity, which to our mind greatly distorts the meaning of the text. The concept of Subjekt (and “_Subjekt_i_vity_” as a qualification to be a Subjekt) refers to Rubinstein. Subjekt means a self-determined and self-actualizing agent. The proper language equivalent is the German word “_Subjekt,” which was actually used by Rubinstein, who had been educated in Marburg as a German philosopher. The active Subjekt in German contrasts to the passive Objekt. In English the meaning of the word “subject” lacks focus on the active role. On the contrary, a subject is something or somebody, which is exposed to somebody else’s actions. For example, we can discuss a subject. In our opinion, the best solution is to preserve the German version of the spelling of this concept: the “Subjekt.” This translation option is still not in use, although examples of preserving the name of a concept in a certain language in psychological discourse abound. The English international discourse contains the concepts Id, Ego, ‘etant, ‘entre, and others. The use of the German word “_Subjekt_” in the AT texts will preserve the meaning of the texts and convey it to the reader, which is worth ng, even if our computer insists on turning it into a “subject” and underlines it with a red line (see the issue explicated in detail in Mironenko 2019).
  2. Karl Marx, Grundrisse (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 92.
  3. Sampson (1988) got 419 citations in Scopus.

References

Download references

Funding

Russian Foundation for Basic Research (RFBR), project № 20–013-00260; Basic Research Program at the NRU HSE (Academic Excellence Project ‘5–100’).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russian Federation
    Irina A. Mironenko
  2. Institute of Education, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Pavel S. Sorokin

Authors

  1. Irina A. Mironenko
  2. Pavel S. Sorokin

Corresponding author

Correspondence toIrina A. Mironenko.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Mironenko, I.A., Sorokin, P.S. Activity Theory for the De-Structuralized Modernity.Integr. psych. behav. 56, 1055–1071 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09587-4

Download citation

Keywords