Psychology as social practice

In contemporary academic literature, it is not unusual to come across the discussions of the merits of the ideas and theoretical postulates of Russian and Soviet scholarship. Regrettably, though, these discussions have virtually always been alienated from the discussions of the related real world social practices that not only implemented these ideas, but also in many ways shaped and determined the ideas and the course of their development. In other words, the intrinsic unity of theory and social practice is all too often ignored in most of the contemporary publications on the topic of Russian psychology' and allied sciences. The standpoint of the “ivory tower” of the pure reason might be appropriate in some, very special contexts, yet it is hardly acceptable in many others. One might argue that there is a wealth of publications on the “social history” of Soviet science, specifically, psychology. Yet, most of these focus on the “social” aspect only, and, which is worse, present the influence of the “social” in the light of the “oppressed science” already discussed above. An increasing volume of recent studies that overcome the age-old biases of the “oppressed science” paradigm and traditional separation of “purely intellectual” and “social” histories bring new light on the idiosyncratic unity of theory and practice of psychology in a Soviet context. A few of these studies are presented in this book.

The whole second section of the book presents the concrete practical applications of psychology in the spheres of medical and educational social practice. These were manifested in the self-proclaimed quasi-disciplines and related practices of “psychohygiene" and “pedology". Both originated in the West in parallel in America and in Europe, yet their greatest success was in the Soviet Russia, more precisely, in the entire Soviet Union, where they proliferated as all-Union mass movements that spread widely across the entire country. From a methodological standpoint, this is a very important issue: due to their disciplinary attribution other than “psychology” proper, these social phenomena that were promoted under different social labels frequently get ignored and avoided by the historians of this field of knowledge. This is a grave mistake that the authors of Chapters 3 and 4, Gregor}' Dufaud and Andy Byford, efficiently correct. Their stories about “psychohygiene” and “pedology”, respectively, importantly complement our understanding of Soviet psychological Marxism in its practical application in social practice. It is up to the reader, though, to make a decision as to how notable in this practice was any Marxism whatsoever.