Activity Theory for the De-Structuralized Modernity

Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science (2020)Cite this article

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

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

34,95 €

Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Notes

  1. 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 “Subjektivity” 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. 2.

    http://www.igs.net/~pballan/Leontyev1981chapt2.htm

  3. 3.

    http://www.igs.net/~pballan/Leontyev1981chapt2.htm

  4. 4.

    http://www.igs.net/~pballan/Leontyev1981chapt2.htm

  5. 5.

    Karl Marx, Grundrisse (London: Penguin, 1973), p. 92.

  6. 6.

    Sampson (1988) got 419 citations in Scopus.

References

  1. Aharony, N., & Zion, A. (2019). Effects of WhatsApp's use on working memory performance among youth. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 57(1), 226–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ananiev, B. G. (1977). Current problems of human nature investigations (in Russian) (379 pp). Moscow: Science.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Archer, C. (2019). Social media influencers, post-feminism and neoliberalism: How mum bloggers ‘playbour’ is reshaping public relations. Public Relations Inquiry, 8(2), 149–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bauman, Z. (2013). Liquid modernity. Cambridge: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Brynjolfsson, E., Rock, D., & Syverson, C. (2018). Artificial intelligence and the modern productivity paradox: A clash of expectations and statistics. In A. Agrawal, J. Gans & A. Goldfarb (Eds.), The economics of artificial intelligence: An agenda (pp. 23–57). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

  6. Cole, M., & Parker, M. (2011). Culture and cognition. In K. D. Keith (Ed.), Cross-cultural psychology: Contemporary themes and perspectives (pp. 133–159). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Denzin, N. K. (1986). Postmodern social theory. Sociological Theory, 4(2), 194–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Engelsted, N. (2017). Catching up with Aristotle: a Journey in quest of general psychology)" // SpringerBriefs. Theoretical Advances in Psychology (157). Cham: Springer.

  9. Engelsted, N., & Engelsted, N. (2018). General Psychology Walks Again. Journal für Psychologie, 26(1), 74–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Flynn, J. R. (2012). Are we getting smarter?: Rising IQ in the twenty-first century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  12. Glaveanu, V. P. (2012). What can be done with an egg? Creativity, material objects, and the theory of affordances. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 46(3), 192–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, Hermans, H. J. M., & Kempen, H. J. G. (1998). Moving cultures: The perilous problems of cultural dichotomies in a globalizing society. American Psychologist, 53(10), 1111–1120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kang, S. K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2015). Multiple identities in social perception and interaction: Challenges and opportunities. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 547–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kirchner, S. (2019). Mobile internet access as a human right: A view from the European high north. Hossain et al.(eds.), Enablement besides Constraints: Human Security and a Cyber Multi-disciplinary Framework in the European High North.

  16. Kuzminov, Y. A., Sorokin, P., & Froumin, I. (2019). Generic and Specific Skills as Components of Human Capital: New Challenges for Education Theory and Practice. Foresight and STI Governance, 13(2), 19–41. https://doi.org/10.17323/2500-2597.2019.2.19.41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Leontiev, A. N. (1973). Probleme der entwicklung des psychischen. (Russian ed., 1959). Berlin (DDR): Volk und Wissen.

  18. Mammen, J. (2017) A new logical foundation for psychology. / Cham, Switzerland : Springer, 2017. 130 s. (SpringerBriefs in psychology).

  19. Mammen, J. (2019). A Grammar of Praxis: an Exposé of “A New Logical Foundation for Psychology”, a Few Additions, and Replies to Alaric Kohler and Alexander Poddiakov. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, Bind 53, Nr. 2, 09.06.2019, s. 223–237.

  20. Mammen, J., & Mironenko, I. A. (2015). Activity theories and the ontology of psychology: learning from danish and russian experiences. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 49(4), 681–713. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-015-9313-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Matsumoto, D. (2009). Teaching about culture. In R. A. R. Gurung & L. R. Prieto (Eds.), Getting culture: Incorporating diversity across the curriculum. Stylus: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Meletiou-Mavrotheris, M., Charalambous, C., & Mavrou, K. (2020). Augmented Reading through emerging technologies: The living book approach to teachers’ professional development. In S. Yu, M. Ally & A. Tsinakos (Eds.), Emerging technologies and pedagogies in the curriculum (pp. 297–313). Singapore: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  23. Meyer, J. W. (2010). World society, institutional theories, and the actor. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Mironenko, I. A. (2013). Concerning interpretations of activity theory. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 47(3), 376–393. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-013-9231-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Mironenko, I. (2019). Concerning the vocabulary on personality in Russian psychology: “Subjekt” vs “personality”. Psychology in Russia: State of the Art, 12(2), 45–57. https://doi.org/10.11621/pir.2019.0205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Mironenko I.A.(2020). Boris Ananiev’s theory of self-determination of human development. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.664.

  27. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Mironenko, I. A., & Sorokin, P. S. (2020). Concerning paradigmatic status of psychological science: for a flexible and flowing psychology in the face of practical and theoretical challenges. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 604–612. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09530-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ortega y Gasset, J. O. (1964). The revolt of the masses (1930). New York: New American Library.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Sampson, E. E. (1985). The decentralization of identity: Towards a revised concept of personal and social order. American Psychologist, 40, 1203–1211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sampson, E. E. (1988). The debate on individualism: Indigenous psychologies of the individual and their role in personal and societal functioning. American Psychologist, 43, 15–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Sampson, E. E. (1989). The challenge of social change for psychology. American Psychologist, 44, 914–921.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sandel, M. J. (1982). Liberalism and limits of justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Sorokin, P. (2016). ‘Global sociology’in different disciplinary practices: Current conditions, problems and perspectives. Current Sociology, 64(1), 41–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Sorokin, P. S. (2018a). Making global sociology in the context of neoliberal domination: Challenges, Ideology and Possible Strategies. Sociological Research, 23(1), 21–42.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sorokin, P. S. (2018b). The ethical challenge for sociology in the face of global modernity: toward solidarity-oriented and ethically contextualized practice. The American Sociologist, 49(3), 414–433.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Sorokin, P. S., Froumin, I. D. (2020). “Structure–agency” problem in 21st century: Social development and research implications. Sotsiologicheskie Issledovaniya, no. 7, pp.27–36.

  38. Taylor, C. (1992). The ethics of authenticity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Toomela, A. (2000). Activity theory is a dead end for cultural-historical psychology. Culture & Psychology, 6, 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X006300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Toomela, A. (2008). Commentary: Activity theory is a dead end for methodological thinking in cultural psychology too. Culture & Psychology, 14, 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067X08088558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Triandis, H. C. (1996). The psychological measurement of cultural syndromes. American Psychologist, 51, 407–415.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Valsiner, J. (2018) Ornamented Lives. Advances in Cultural Psychology: Constructing Human Development. IAP, 2018.

  43. Valsiner, J. (2020). From clay feet to new psychology: Starting the move. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 54, 515–520. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09564-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Williamson, B., Eynon, R., & Potter, J. (2020). Pandemic politics, pedagogies and practices: Digital technologies and distance education during the coronavirus emergency. Learning, Media and Technology, 45(2), 107–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

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
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pavel S. Sorokin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Irina 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

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mironenko, I.A., Sorokin, P.S. Activity Theory for the De-Structuralized Modernity. Integr. psych. behav. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-020-09587-4

Download citation

Keywords

  • Activity theory
  • Evolution of mind
  • “Ontological shift”
  • “De-structuralized modernity”
  • Culture
  • Technological advancements
  • Gadgets
  • Socio-cultural identity
  • Self-identity