Abstract: The authors of the article substantiate the problem of developing the theoretical and methodological foundations of the historical and psychological study of the development of regional psychology, which reveals specifics in comparison with the development of national psychology; the relevance and prospects of the study of collective forms of organization and development of regional psychology, the implementation of a subjective approach in their study. The subject of the theoretical analysis is the methodological foundations of the implementation of the subjective approach in the historical and psychological study of regional psychology. Based on the theoretical and methodological foundations of the history of psychology, proposed and substantiated in the works of V.A. Koltsova, the fundamentals of the implementation of the subjective approach at the philosophical, epistemological, general scientific, special scientific and specifically scientific levels of the methodology of historical and psychological research are determined. The main attention is paid to the analysis of the conceptual provisions presented in the scientific works of M.G. Yaroshevsky, philosophical and general psychological publications of S.L. Rubinstein and A.V. Brushlinsky, as well as the socio-psychological works of A.L. Zhuravlev. This makes it possible to determine the possibilities of studying a collective subject as active, self-determined and self-organizing, and to limit the scope of application of the principle of determinism as causality in explaining the development of regional psychology. An important conclusion of the analysis is the statement as the most important basis for the study of the dynamics of collective forms of organization of science of A.L. Zhuravlev's ideas about the levels and stages of a collective subject, implemented in the historical and psychological studies of the development of domestic psychology by O.A. Artemeva. The application in the history of psychology of the general scientific principle of systemacy and specifically scientific principles of hierarchy and unity of theory, experiment and practice allows us to reveal the dependence of scientific knowledge on the practice of its subject and to study the development of regional psychology as a multipronged, multidimensional and multilevel process, taking into account its systemic determination. The scientific novelty of the approach presented in the article consists in a theoretically justified appeal to the poorly developed problem of the development of regional psychology and the definition of the methodological foundations of its solution in line with the history of psychology.

Abstract: The subject of the study was the subjects' connections reflecting the degree of similarity of the research topics of the founder (G.I. Chelpanov), subsequent leaders (K.N. Kornilov, A.B. Zalkind, V.N. Kolbanovsky), and leading employees of the Psychological Institute in 1913-1937. In the context of solving the problem of collective forms of development of domestic psychology, a slang analysis of the titles of their published psychological works was carried out. In order to take into account the semantic meanings, the quantitative analysis of the titles is supplemented by the results of a qualitative analysis of the subject and type of publications, the availability of reprints and biographical data of their authors, as well as the results of an event analysis of the social history of the development of Russian psychology in the first half of the twentieth century. The results obtained testify to the strength of the subject connections of the institute leaders and specific leading employees who supported them in the implementation of research programs and in the development of topical problems of psychological theory and practice; which determined the effectiveness of their joint scientific activities in the 1920s-1930s. The main topic that united scientists was general psychology, to a lesser extent pedagogical psychology. Due to the presence of subject connections, the Institute's staff made a significant collective contribution to the definition of the theoretical and methodological foundations of the study of the psychology of behavior, consciousness and such mental processes as sensations, perception, memory, thinking, and speech; into the development of methods of psychological research: experimental, biographical, observation methods, testing, etc. The solution of the problems of pedagogical psychology, as well as other practice-oriented areas of psychology – developmental, social, special, labor psychology, etc., by the staff of the Institute was based on the tradition of organizing experimental research, laid down when the institute was founded by G.I. Chelpanov and determined the content of the subject relations of its leading scientists in the following decades.

Abstract: In the context of the problem of institutionalization of the Russian and Soviet psychology of the early XX century, the research is conducted on the peculiarities of organizing scientific work under the leadership of G. I. Chelpanov. For determination of the composition and characteristics of the research groups created by him, the author carries out biographical and bibliographic analysis of personal written documents, materials that characterizes the official activity of the scholars and communities, historical-psychological works dedicated to life and research activity of G. I. Chelpanov. The three scientific-educational bases for the creation of research groups headed by Chelpanov are highlighted: the Psychological Seminary at the Department of Philosophy of the Imperial University of St. Vladimir in Kiev (1897–1907), the Psychological Seminary at the Imperial Moscow University (1907–1912), and the Institute of Psychology named after L. G. Shchukina (1912–1923). The staff composition of the research groups is revealed. The novelty of this article lies in the description of G. I. Chelpanov as the pioneer of the Russian psychological science and education, who duly appreciated teamwork at the stage of establishment of psychology as big science in the early XX century. The traces the succession of the staff composition of research groups ,as well as the subject of reports and research conducted by the members of the collective, according to the plan developed by the leader G. I. Chelpanov, primarily in the scope of general psychology. It is demonstrated that in the course of socially significant activity, on the collective basis were resolved the tasks of training of competent philosophers and psychologists, and later of implementation of the research program on the development of theoretical-methodological  fundamentals of the empirical research of psyche. The authors underline the importance of individual approach implemented by Chelpanov in working with the scientific associates aimed at the development of their creative skills.

Abstract: In the context of studying work organization of the leading teams of Russian psychologists, the article provides characteristics of the research groups that worked under the direction of V. M. Bekhterev in the field of psychology. For outlining the institutional framework, composition and results of the activity of such groups, the author carries out the biographical analysis along with the analysis of the products of scientific activity of the scholar and members of his team. It is demonstrated that the psychological direction of the scientific school of V. M. Bekhterev was formed out of the groups led by him at the premises of Kazan State University, Saint Petersburg Military Medical Academy, Neuropsychiatric Institute, and Institute for Brain Research. The novelty of the implemented approach consists in reconstruction of the establishment of reflexology as an independent psychological direction of scientific activity of V. M. Bekhterev from the perspective of socio-psychological theory of the collective. The individual “branches” of research of the team members were a distinct feature of the organization of collective work, which ensured the fulfillment of creative potential of each scholar and contribution to the development of the collective subject of research. The author also notes the united role of the leader. Throughout 40 years, V. M. Bekhterev united dozens of talented researchers. A crucial characteristic of the psychological “scientific school-research group” represented by a number of research teams was the experimental, practical and socially oriented research program for human study. The author indicates the priority of the scientific school of V. M. Bekhterev in the development and implementation of the objective and comprehensive approach towards studying the psychological phenomena. Based on the described peculiarities of organizing scientific activity, the established research base and of psychological personnel determined the formation of the Leningrad School of Soviet Psychology not only in the works of V. N. Myasishchev, N. M. Shchelovanov, A. V. Yarmolenko, M. Y. Basov, B. G. Ananyev, but also many other Russian psychologists.

Abstract: Despite the fact that L. S. Vygotsky is a prominent figure in the history of Russian psychology due to the unique contribution to the development of scientific thought and organization of work of the new scientific center, the research group under his authority becomes the subject of a separate research for the first time. This article discusses the results of biographical analysis based on the historical-psychological sources, published testimonies of his contemporaries, such as memoirs, conversations and interviews, scientific autobiographies, transcripts of speeches, biographical articles, and published archival materials. The novelty of the implemented by the author research approach consists in reference to the research activity of L. S. Vygotsky and his scientific school from the perspective of theory of the collective. It is determined that due to the work in different institutions and different goals of research activity, the group of scholars under the authority of L. S. Vygotsky cannot be defined as a collective. The leader of Soviet psychology and defectology was a head of several interrelated research groups: since 1924 at the premises of the Institute of Experimental Psychology, since 1929 – the Experimental Institute of Defectology and the Academy of Communist Education named after N. K. Krupskaya, since 1932 – the All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine. In order to manage the effective research work of the groups, L. S. Vygotsky applied his creative, pedagogical and organizational skills. The scholar implemented a democratic management approach based on the uniformity of administration, cognition, and communication. L. S. Vygotsky’s scientific school was united by a progressive experimental and practice-oriented research program, sensitive to the public needs in building the theory and system of psychological assistance in the USSR.

Abstract: This article employs a historical-psychological approach towards solution of the problem of interrelation between research and practical psychology in the Soviet Union. The author discusses the results of empirical research, with application of the methods of biographical and event analysis, slang analysis of headlines, qualitative and quantitative analysis of scientific and practice-oriented publications of the leading Soviet psychologists, as well as official documents that regulated the organization of psychological science and practice. The article is firs to offer periodization of evolution of relations between research and practical psychology in USSR; provides brief characteristics to each period. The importance of organization and regulation of science and practice on the state level, as well as self-organization of the psychologists is determined. A conclusion is made on the impact of fundamental changes in social conditions of the development of national psychology in the early and late XX century, particularly the revolution of 1917, “perestroika” and subsequent dissolution of the Soviet Union, first and foremost upon the state of psychological practice. The author articulates the problem of succession in the development of research and practical psychology in Russia; underlines its correlation with solution of pedagogical tasks. The conducted analysis allows expanding the historiographical representations on regularities of development of interrelation between psychological science and practice in USSR, as well as trace the genesis of “schism” of research and practical psychology in modern Russia.

Abstract: The article is devoted to isolationalism as the issue of Russian and Soviet psychology. Artemyeva gives an overview of the main theoretical approaches to solving the issue in Russian and Western psychology. She offers her own socio-psychological approach that implies the analysis of the regulators of the psychological research in relation to the social environment of the science development. The subject of the research is the social and methodological concepts of Russian psychologists in the first half of the XXth century. The main research method used by the author is the historical reconstruction of the psychology development. The qualitative analysis involves official Soviet documents, biographical, bibliographical and archival data about the activity of the leading Russian psychologists. Based on her concept of the socio-psychological determinants of the psychology development, the author defines peculiarities of socialization and academic skills development as the main mechanisms that form the basis of the social and methodological concepts of Russian pre-revolutionary and Soviet psychologists. Artemyeva discovers the causes and patterns of isolationalism concepts in terms of the Russian psychology development. As a result of her research, she concludes that the isolationalism concept was not immanent for Russian psychology but imposed by the country's party leadership. Being an inefficient socio-psychologist phenomenon, it still predetermined the development of the positive attitude to Marx' approach and practice-oriented organisation of objective psychological research activity.

Abstract: The article is devoted to the problem of internationalism and isolationism of the domestic psychology of the first half of the XX century. The object of the study is the international trends in the development of domestic practice-oriented psychology, and the subject is international scientific communication as a condition for the development of the main scientific and practical trends in the domestic psychology of the period studied. An original approach to solving the problem is proposed in the context of the idea of a self-developing collective subject of scientific knowledge involved in the system of international scientific communication. The method of historical and psychological reconstruction is being implemented. The results of the analysis of data on international cooperation in the course of the organization of scientific and practical trends, as well as on official and informal contacts of the leading representatives of Soviet pedology, psychotechnology and psychoanalysis with foreign scientists are presented. The novelty of the study consists in revealing the specifics and role of the general social and scientific and social conditions in the implementation of the inter-ethnic scientific communication of domestic psychologists: the significance of not only social need is determined (in increasing labor productivity, educating a new person, theoretical and ideological justification of social transformations, recognition and strengthening of political positions of the Soviet state abroad), but also scientific policy in relation to the scientific and practical trends of psychology ii. Conclusions are drawn about the close relationship of international scientific communication, Soviet science policy and the processes of institutionalization of domestic scientific and practical trends in the 1920s. 

Abstract: The authors of the present research defines the problem of social determination of the historical development of Russian practical psychology. Based on the material of the history of main currents of Russian practical psychology's development in the first half of the XX century the author proposes the historical-scientific solution of the aforesaid problem. The authors also give a brief description of the main modern approaches to defining conditions, prerequisites, factors and results of the social determination of the pedagogical, psychoanalytical and psychotechnical movements of the 1920's - early 1930's. The authors present the results of the empirical research of what has determined the development and crisis of those movements in the first half of the XXth century using such methods of historical and psychological research as the analysis of research findings, biographical and bibliographical analysis, historical and psychological reconstruction and development of the classification of historical stages. The authors describe the main social conditions for developing research and practical movements: 1) Soviet science policy; 2) public demand for practice-oriented researches in industrial, ideological, social and administrative spheres. For the first time in he academic literature the authors describe the main mechanism of the social determination of the development of research and practical movements of the Soviet psychology, institutionalization. The authors define specific features of the Soviet research policy towards practical psychology, its ambivalent nature and role for de-institutionalization processes (elimination of research centers, specific print media, etc.). The authors also offer their own classification of stages of research and practical movements in the Russian psychology of the first half of the XXth century taking into account the social environment. 
 

Abstract: This article gives insight into the fundamentals of the psychoanalytical approach to the image of God in monotheism. These fundamental concepts provide anthropological and humanistic intepretation of the image of God. According to S. Freud and C. G. Jung, in Judaism and Christianity the image of God, on the one hand, has the features of human personality and responsibility of a parent, and on the other hand, presents the ideal of human development that involves integration of all personality substances into one system. In other words, the idea and the image of God is either deduced from personal experience/experience of a group of people or viewed as a mean of personal development. Despite the fact that elimination of the sacral meaning of the image of God simplifies the phenomenon under research, the psychological feature and potential of the image of God are very important for the theory and practice of psychoanalytic assistance to a neurotic personality of our time. In their research the authors analyze fundamental works such as Freud's Totem and Taboo, The Future of an Illusion, Moses and Monotheism, Jung's Answer to Job, Psychology and Religion and others. The researchers describe the views of these psychologists on the psychological roots and the meaning of religion either as a mental construct that defends man from the traumatic influence of the reality or representation of collective unconscious that encourages individuation. Consequently, the condition that allows to overcome neurosis is viewed as the denial of religion in one case and appealing to the religious experience as the source of life, meaning and beauty, on the other hand. 

Abstract: The history of domestic psychology of the 1920-1930th represents rare naukovedchesky material. At this time under the influence of unique social conditions growth and elimination of a number of scientific and practical currents – psychoanalysis, pedology, psychoequipment was observed. The appeal to history of development of each of these currents allows to open essential regularities of social determination of science. In the represented work on the basis of the analysis historical and scientific, including archival, materials the social biography of the Soviet psychoequipment is reconstructed. Tragic destinies of her leaders I.N. Shpilreyn and S.G. Gellerstein are represented. Stages of the social biography of a psychotechnical current as subject of scientific activity are allocated. The characteristic of social conditions of its formation and elimination in the Soviet Russia is given. As result of social determination of development of a current change of methodological installations of the Soviet psychotechnicians is traced. At reconstruction of "the social biography" of the Soviet psychoequipment the main publications and private papers of her scientific leaders, results of historical and psychological researches and official documents regulating activity of the Soviet psychotechnicians in 1920-1930 were analyzed. The carried-out work allowed to draw a conclusion on dependence of development of a scientific and practical current on such social conditions, as economic, ideological and political. The special attention is paid to ambivalent nature of influence of the Soviet scientific policy: on the one hand, repressions concerning experts scientists led to suppression of a research initiative and weakening of scientific and technical capacity of the country, with another – the Soviet scientific policy promoted merger of scientific community on the basis of the general methodological principles.

Abstract: The authors of the article define the problem of the relation between fundamental, applied and practical branches of psychology. Based on the analysis of V.A. Koltsova, T.D. Martsinkovskaya, O.G. Noskova, T. Leahy, R. Smith and other Russian and foreign historians, the authors provide the overview of the history of formation and development of applied and practical trends in psychology, especially pedology and psychotechnics. For the analysis of the historical-scientific and methodological patterns, the authors use the dynamic model of the relationship between theoretical psychology and social practice through the development of applied psychology developed by L.S. Vygotsky. More recent periods of relations between Russian fundamental psychology and psychological practice are viewed based on the conceptual grounds offered by A.L. Zhuravlev, D.V. Ushakov, A.G. Liders and I.N. Karitsky. The opportunities to distinguish applied and practical branches of psychology in the practical activity of psychologists are revealed so is the concept of role-playing ring proposed by Y.M. Zhukov. As a result, the structure of the relationship between subject and object of psychological activity is determined as an important base of classification of these branches. Historical analysis of the development of practical and applied branches of psychology in the first half of the XX century allows us to formulate a hypothesis about the singleness of the basic patterns of their development.