Academic, applied and practical psychology. Why academic psychology is useless in applied work

PSYCHOLOGICAL JOURNAL, 2015, Volume 36, No. 3, p. 81-90

DISCUSSION

ACADEMIC AND PRACTICAL PSYCHOLOGY: ACTUAL COEXISTENCE AND PROSPECTS1

V. A. Mazilov

Doctor of Psychology, Professor, Head of the Department of General and Social Psychology at the YaGPU named after K. D. Ushinsky, the city of Yaroslavl; e-mail: [email protected]

The history of the relationship between academic and practical psychology is traced2. It is proved that historically they have different roots. It is shown that the gap between them, fixed by L.S. Vygotsky (1927), has existed and is still taking place, but this is not a crisis, but the normal state of science. V scientific psychology there is a rivalry between the natural-scientific and hermeneutic paradigms. Academic and practical psychology are not competitors, since each occupies its own niche and solves different problems. It is proved that there is no paradigmatic opposition between academic and practical psychology in modern psychological science: it is a disguised "classical" rivalry between natural scientific and hermeneutic paradigms.

Key words: academic psychology, practical psychology, natural science paradigm, hermeneutic (humanitarian) paradigm.

Perhaps the time has come to return to the discussion of the "eternal" questions for psychologists - the relationship between academic psychology and practice. It seems that the problem lies in the presence of different components in the general complex of knowledge about the mental, and in psychology itself - different streams.

Since psychology has many different roots, researchers can choose different moments as the time of its inception. In any case, in Aristotle we can find both elements of psychological theory and elements of psychological practice, and therefore, in one form or another, and their opposition. Indeed, in the 4th century BC. the term "psychology" does not yet exist (it will appear only after 18 centuries), the doctrine of the soul - logos peri psyche - already exists, and Plato introduced the term "psychogyny" to denote a practice, implementing which a good orator can lead his listeners. What is not the opposition of the lyceum and the academic,

1 This work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (grant no. 14-18-01833).

2 The article continues the discussion that unfolded on the pages of the "Psychological Journal" in the works of A.L. Zhuravlev, D.V. Ushakov. (2011. No. 3. S. 5-16; 2012. No. 2. P. 127-132), Zhalagina T.A., Korotkina E.D. (2012. No. 1. P. 137-140), Orlova A.B. (2012. No. 2. P. 124-126), Yurevicha A.V. (No. 1. P. 127-136), Rozina V.M. (2012. No. 2. S. 119123). - Approx. ed.

and even with the irony of history? (It seems that this would please Jung: it is remarkably consistent with the principle of enantiodromy, according to Heraclitus).

It should be specially noted that, in our opinion, the opposition between different streams within psychological knowledge is natural and inevitable.

ACADEMIC PSYCHOLOGY AND PRACTICE IN PRIOR SCIENCE,

PHILOSOPHICAL AND SCIENTIFIC STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY

Historically, psychology begins with pre-scientific psychology, which, in the well-known expression of P. Janet, "people create before psychologists." From psychology, which does not recognize itself as a science (and, in general, it is not), but exists, serving the activities and communication of people. According to the characteristics of M.S. Rogovin is a psychology in which knowledge and activity are fused together, due to the need to understand another person in the process of joint work, the need to correctly respond to his actions and deeds. “Man developed and learned his subjective world as he mastered the external world.

became accessible through practical interaction with the environment. ”Without analyzing here the extremely fascinating question of the origin and initial development of pre-scientific, implicit psychology, we note only that there is apparently no doubt that the main method of such psychology was everyday observation.

In our opinion, it would be wrong to reduce the "initial" pre-scientific psychology only to the one described above. Psychology "grew" simultaneously from various sources, which was quite rightly pointed out by Max Dessouard, one of the first historians of psychology. He saw three roots of psychology: religious (psychosophy); associated with life (psychobiology); associated with practical knowledge of character traits, etc. (psychognosis). It is also impossible not to take into account the experience of experiencing altered states of consciousness: during dance orgies, ecstasy, eating certain substances, etc.

The role of pre-scientific psychology should not be underestimated. Every person has everyday ideas about the psychic; they constitute the basis on which scientific constructions are projected. Implicit representations (the so-called implicit theories of personality, motivation, psyche in general, etc.) of a person, which largely determine his interaction with the world, should be taken into account as one of the prerequisites for the formation of a psychological theory. Here it is appropriate to recall the concept of the mesocosm used in the evolutionary epistemology of G. Vollmer. “The mesocosm is a cognitive window that opens in front of a person burdened with his biological nature... This is the world of average dimensions, to which man has adapted in the course of biological evolution. The mesocosm is the "cognitive niche" of a person. " G. Vollmer analyzes the intuitive ideas of modern man about movement, stating the similarities with the physical theories of the Middle Ages. It is argued that these prejudices are virtually unavoidable. It remains only to express regret that the features of a person's intuitive ideas about his own psyche have not yet been sufficiently investigated. Perhaps progress in this area will be achieved when scientific psychology assimilates the experience gained in transpersonal psychology.

An important feature of pre-scientific psychology is that its "object does not essentially change

Xia (these are always the people with whom we directly come into contact). "Pre-scientific psychology, therefore, has an" object "origin. For it, the person himself is important. We can say that pre-scientific psychology was personally-oriented. so, pre-scientific psychology requires "grounding", practical knowledge. Its role in modern psychology is, apparently, to defend the tendency towards a holistic ("object") and practice-oriented cognition Unfortunately, the peculiarities of pre-scientific psychology are still clearly insufficiently studied.

The dismemberment of psychological knowledge (and, accordingly, three types of psychology - pre-scientific, philosophical and scientific) seems useful for analyzing the topic of interest to us. At the same time, I would like to draw attention to the essential difference between this division of psychology and the numerous three-term divisions that were popular in the century before last and last. As an example, we can take the well-known law of three stages by O. Comte, according to which theological, metaphysical and scientific stages can be distinguished in the development of any science. According to Comte, there is a change from one stage to another: the transition to the next "cancels" the previous one. This is not the case in psychology. It is important for our research that the indicated trends in psychology and types of psychological knowledge coexist in culture and, therefore, can have a mutual influence.

As you know, L.S. Vygotsky in his famous work"The historical meaning of the psychological crisis" (1927). The work was published only in 1982, before that it was known only to a narrow circle of copy specialists in samizdat. On this occasion, a lot has been written, those interested will refer to our publications, and we ourselves will turn to modern psychology.

It is known that the classical interpretation of the connection between theory, experiment and practice was carried out by B.F. Lomov in the article "Theory, Experiment and Practice in Psychology" in the first issue of "Psychological Journal", and then in the well-known monograph. As the author noted, "the interaction ... of theory, experiment and practice is a necessary condition for the development of the entire system of psychological sciences."

Recall that we are discussing the ratio of academic and practical psychology, and in this case, the starting point of the problem is determined, as it seems to many, quite unambiguously: in 1996, a well-known article by F.E. Vasilyuk. The article argued that there is a schism between academic and practical psychology. It seems to us that we should not forget that O.K. Tikhomirov was the first in the modern history of Russian psychology to pose the problem of the relationship between academic and practical psychology, and he considered it as a problem of world psychological science. OK. Tikhomirov wrote: “The ratio of theoretical, or academic, psychology and practical psychology. Two areas are torn apart in the structure of world psychological science. This gap is institutionalized. There are two international associations. One is called the Association for Scientific Psychology, the other is the Association for Applied Psychology. They gather in different cities, with a different composition (sometimes it can overlap). " As a result, the practical work of psychologists is built without relying on theories developed in academic psychology. Academic psychology, in turn, does not sufficiently analyze and assimilate the experience of practical psychology. It should be noted that the relationship between academic and practice-oriented psychology is discussed today in the periodicals very widely, the problem is still relevant today.

There are many approaches to identifying species and subspecies. scientific knowledge, including psychological. For example, theoretical, applied and practical knowledge, humanitarian and natural science approach to the construction of psychology, etc. They talk about it openly, write about it in books. But there is one important division within the science of psychology, which is being actively discussed orally today, which is obvious to many, but for some reason it is not customary to talk about officially. This is the division of psychology into the so-called academic and practical.

You will not find definitions of these concepts in books and dictionaries, but this does not prevent them from coexisting and sometimes entering into easy and sometimes irreconcilable polemics with each other. Every school psychologist from time to time becomes a voluntary or involuntary participant in it. Many are familiar with this alarming internal dichotomy: in theory, everything is clear in the problem, but it is not clear what to do in practice.

And further. Many of us from time to time experience more or less tangible blows to professional self-esteem: everything was so clear in the books and clever speeches of the lecturer, why is it not possible to apply theoretical knowledge in practice? Probably, if the same lecturer were in my place, he would not have any problems ... Is this self-deprecation fair? What position is it advisable to take in practice in relation to academic knowledge?

BASIS OF BASES

First of all, let's give some working definitions.
Academic psychology- a system of ideas about the subject, tasks, values ​​and means of professional activity, formulated, at best, by a certain scientific school, at worst, arising from the vague theoretical orientations of employees of educational and scientific institutions.
Practical psychology- a system of ideas (most often, semi-verbalized, intuitive) about the subject, tasks, values ​​and means of professional activity, on which the psychologist relies in a particular area of ​​social practice - education, management, medicine, social assistance, etc.

Academic psychology today has the status of an official science. It is she who dominates the market of special literature (we do not take into account the popular psychological products designed for non-professionals), it is taught in universities and presented on the pages of respected scientific periodicals, it is considered as an obligatory foundation of the practical work of a psychologist.

Any conference on practical psychological issues begins with plenary meetings, where the main word belongs to the same academic psychology in the person of doctors and candidates of sciences.

The overwhelming majority of professional psychologists by their first education are academic specialists. They have a certain amount of knowledge about what the psyche is and what its abstract-scientific structure is (general psychology), what is the structure of human relationships from the point of view of theoretical models (social psychology), how, in general, psychological ontogenesis (developmental psychology) looks like, and etc. They know what scientific and applied psychodiagnostics is and what serious requirements are imposed on this diagnostic procedure in terms of validity, reliability and stability. In general, they have a scientific picture of how, by and large, the human mental world is arranged. A person in general.

What happens then, when the owner of this “general knowledge of man”, immediately after graduation or at some stage of his personal life, decides to work in the practical sphere?

THEN IN THE HEAT, THEN IN THE COLD

It is difficult to answer this question in an academic way, in a generalized way. I will say about myself, especially since mine professional way in this sense is very trivial.

I received a good education, became a candidate of sciences and went to work as a school psychologist. The first years were incredibly difficult. The subjective authority of academic knowledge was so high that its content was beyond criticism and comprehension for a long time. Actually, I had no other knowledge: so, a little personal experience, but what kind of "serious" scientist trusts him?

The accusations were brought against herself (did not teach, did not understand) and the school. The school got the most (I feel sorry for myself, again, a red diploma). And they, the teachers, do not need anything, and they do not want to fall to the life-giving source scientific knowledge in my face, and my children's parents are wrong, they have nothing to do with their children, and the administration is uneducated, etc.

Then came the "paradoxical phase": I began to think quite seriously that one can become a good practitioner only by completely forgetting everything that was taught at the university, trusting one's intuition and experience, and having learned to see a specific person in the interlocutor. I remember the period when many books on psychology caused irritation: with their language, approach to the analysis of problems, the lack of real examples ...

By the way, now the former acuteness of feelings has disappeared, but I still do not accept some things: I do not like it when a person is called an individual, when they use complex terminology where you can put it simply, when they offer practical recommendations based not on real experience, but on material dissertations.

PURPOSE AND MEANING

Not so long ago, the stage described above was replaced by the next (God forbid, not the last). An understanding of the undoubted value of some aspects of their own academic education came.

So, one fundamental attitude, formed under the influence of teachers during the years of study, helps me a lot. It sounds something like this: "Always start by setting goals and questions for personal meaning." That is, before you do something, answer yourself the question why you are doing this (what do you want to see at the output) and why you need it (what values, what personal meanings are invisibly behind your actions).

This attitude is actualized for me by itself in many situations, but if there is some kind of failure at an unconscious level, I apply it consciously. Whatever the task is - diagnostic, consultative, organizational and methodological - first of all, it is necessary to put the question on the meaning (this is the expression of A.N. Leontyev) and set the goal.

This formulation of the question is especially important when it comes to using a ready-made, "someone else's" technique. In any technique, any diagnostic, corrective and other procedure, their creators have invested certain goals and introduced some values, some relation to the world, the object of influence and to whoever will use this tool.

On rare occasions, creators openly present their goals and values. And meanwhile, using the tool, you automatically bring the goals and values ​​inherent in it into your activity. Of course, sometimes it is possible, without changing a particular technique in essence, to use it to solve one's problems, to reorient it in the value aspect, but this is a great rarity.

So, if the questionnaire is built in a clinical way, it works to identify deviations. And it will do this even if you use it for selection of personnel when hiring (which is done everywhere today).

If the projective method "Non-existent animal" assumes that the researcher forms not so much an objective "dossier" on the subject, based on the criteria, but a subjective personal view of his drawing as a whole, then without this holistic subjective assessment the method will not work, no matter how sophisticated criteria you did not enter.

If traditional correctional techniques involve the training of cognitive processes, then you will not be able to form a child's personal position in relation to their activities with the help of these techniques. Etc.

The second most important contribution of academic education to my professional "I" is the ability to build an activity from setting a goal to evaluating the result. Work without losing your goal. Do not go with the flow, keep track of the stages, limit yourself to a certain clear course, realizing that you cannot do everything, you cannot overshadow the immense. This is the aftereffect of research and development that contributes greatly to the formation of this skill. At school, without this, you will instantly drown in a sea of ​​problems and requests.

This article was published with the support of the MediKlab company. The wide range of offers of the MediKlab medical center includes the following cosmetology procedure like cryolipolysis. By visiting the official website of the MediKlab company, located at http://medi-club.ru, you can get a cryolipolysis coupon and make an appointment with a doctor at the medical center. Favorable prices, the most modern equipment and effective techniques treatment, extensive experience and professionalism of the specialists of the Medical Center "MediKlab" are the guarantors that you will be completely satisfied with all the services provided. And also the company's website contains reviews of patients who have undergone treatment at the MediKlab medical center, and the “question-answer” section of the website will allow you to ask a qualified doctor a question about any disease or cosmetic procedure you are interested in.

CONFRONTATION

But there are things from which I have resolutely dissociated myself. For example, from the attitude of the official psychological science to "real" psychodiagnostics. Yes, what I understand today by school practical diagnostics, from the point of view of exact science, is paganism, profanation and deprofessionalization. None of the methods used have been tested for reliability and validity. It didn’t pass, not because it was imperfect, but because it didn’t even occur to me to do it.

Diagnostics in my work solves problems of a completely different level and meaning. What I use allows me to achieve my goals. Everything else is vanity. (Terrible sedition, but it is.) I have a bad attitude towards the meaning that today's academic psychology puts into the word "objectivity." Objectivity as valuelessness, the psychologist's detachment from the problem, the exclusion of his personal values ​​from the diagnostic process and subsequent stages of work.

Values ​​and meanings permeate the attitude of any person to the world inside and around him, his gaze is necessarily evaluated, there is no other. Otherwise, it is already something else. For example, spying on the world in a tiny hole. Either a school psychologist is an "objective researcher" who sees a tiny piece of another person, whom he calls an individual, subject, subject, or he is a biased participant in communication, dealing with a specific person in all his biological, personal and individual manifestations.

And I have a very bad attitude to the position “from above”, which representatives of “big science” often take in relation to practitioners. Distrust of their personal experience, their intuitive generalizations, disregard for their own theoretical constructions, which originate not from the postulates of some established tradition, but from their own activities; condescending and arrogant attitude to the language spoken by practitioners - all this is there and does not honor the representatives of scientific schools and trends.

Probably, someday this confrontation will become a thing of the past. It is possible that not everyone notices him even now. In my opinion, it exists, but it can well be overcome by bringing the positions of academic and practical psychology closer together. You need to take advantage of each approach.

Marina BITIANOVA,
PhD in Psychology

The design uses an engraving by contemporary American artist Antonio Fresconi "Day and Night"

V. V. Kozlov, Yaroslavl

"There is no psychology, there are attempts to interpret it"

In 2007, a new classification of directions of psychology appeared, which belongs to the outstanding modern psychologist A.V. Yurevich. Professor Yurevich added pop psychology to the well-known classification of the academic and practical directions of psychology, and referred the author of this article to its outstanding representative.
Without a doubt, there is nothing offensive about being a pop psychologist. It is important for us, if we are presented in this direction in the form of an explicit figure, to have a clarity of understanding of this identity.
To clearly delineate the three territories (academic, practical and pop psychology), we need to unequivocally define these concepts themselves.
Unfortunately, these definitions are absent in the article by A.V. Yurevich, but it clearly follows from the text that academic psychology is scientific, the forerunners of practical psychology are Dale Carnegie and Vladimir Levy, and Nikolai Kozlov is a prominent representative of modern practical psychology.
The epithet scientific, in my opinion, is not a basic feature of academic science, including academic psychology. How many pseudoscientific bourgeois trends in psychology were there in the twentieth century, which in fact turned out to be more academic and scientific than many theoretical constructions of "the most scientific and advanced materialistic".
For this reason, in my opinion, it is necessary to strictly logically define what is hidden behind the concepts of academic psychology, practical psychology and pop psychology.
The concept of academic psychology is associated in Soviet and Russian psychology more with the epithets “state”, “scientific”, “research”, “correlated with the opinion of the majority,” “generally recognized”. The highest sign of recognition of the "academic character" of an idea or concept is either the author's admission to the "big" academy or his official publication in the thick central journals of the editions of this academy.
Thus, academic psychology is a system of theories, methods and research recognized by the majority of the scientific community and approved as a standard by the expert community of the state academy or other scientific specialized branch head organization.
In any state, this state of affairs is a manifestation of a scientific corporate ideology, a single point of understanding of truth, truth, scientific character, a monopoly on objective knowledge.
The logic of state academicism has a long history. Initially, academies, in the meaning of scientific communities, were either private, so-called free academies, or public institutions founded and maintained at the expense of the state. They were united by one common quality - that they are engaged in science not for practical purposes, but for its own sake.
The first academy of this kind was founded by Ptolemy.
But the general veil of academicism, their spirit of elitism was brought, no doubt, by the Jewish academies in Palestine, Mesopotamia and Babylonia (1st century AD). It was Talmudic scholarship, adherence and strictness in following the Torah, claims for correct understanding and interpretation of the Law that then became the ideological core, spirit and style of the Academies.
The palm in the integration of "scholarship" and the state belongs to France. Academy received essential after Guichelieu turned a modest private society into a national institution in 1635, the Academie Francaise, which later, during the revolution, was merged with other related institutions under the general name Institut de France. This is brilliant content at the expense of the state, but subject to strong influence government and court, the national institution had a profound influence on the development of social thought in France. Academies in the capitals of other European states were subsequently set up on its model, some of which also acquired the character of national central institutions(in Madrid, Lisbon, Stockholm and St. Petersburg). In Russia, the plan of the Imperial Academy of Sciences was drawn up by Peter the Great and executed in 1725.
In a sense, the situation in academia and academia has not changed much since then.
As two thousand years ago, so today, the most popular is "Talmudic scholarship" - especially in the humanities: a million army of adherents of academicism are engaged in science not for practical purposes, but for itself. Their endless isolation from life is at the same time the basis of their endless pride.
Undoubtedly, many academic departments in modern states have a practical orientation, and the research of these scientists is in great demand by society. They are often far from the postulated scientific character. Moreover, they are not interested in it. Declaring them "academicians" is mostly pragmatic. They are the ones who demonstrate to modern society that science can be useful, and that, after all, society may not out of mercy contain useless intellectual narcissists with academic badges.
At the time when "God died", academic science should have focused on social issues, in the center of which stood a man and his pressing problems, needs, interests: pure science was transformed into a socio-political force. The function of academic science has changed: research, interpretation, integration of the intellectual achievements of social consciousness.
But this function could show the relevance of academic science only if it contributed to the effective solution of current and fundamental problems facing the individual, social communities and humanity as a whole.
Russian academic science has been successfully implemented in solving three basic problems of science:
practical (meeting the economic, technological, military needs of the state);
ideological (the formation of mass consciousness in line with the Marcist-Leninist philosophy);
standard (formation of the methodological foundations of materialistic science and strict criteria of scientific character).
In the conditions of a totalitarian society, these functions were realized completely and quite unambiguously.
Academic psychology, following the "big" science, successfully implemented the same functions.
You shouldn't think that the situation has changed over the past 20 years. Despite the high dynamism of social processes, the functions of academic psychology have not changed, nor have the content changed, the basic methodology stuck in Cartesian linear determinism.
Academic psychology has never been able to exert significant influence on the life of an individual and groups. Not because academic theories lacked truth or were unsuitable as systems. Their rationality, intellectuality have led to the fact that they have only theoretical value. That which is born by reason can only feed reason.
A situation that clearly demonstrates this can be called a situation of a gap between two worlds: the world of academic scientific psychology and the world of practical psychology. It is known how little psychology can help in some of the most essential areas. human life how great the need for an elementary psychological assistance, consultation, psychological culture of relations. Moreover, how helpless the academic psychologists themselves are in any more or less difficult life situation.
A culture of practical psychological assistance is not provided by university education or advanced degrees. She is laid with early childhood and develops in mysterious ways that are very difficult to reproduce on purpose, and it is very difficult to get knowledge about these ways, on the basis of which the diseases of human relations could be cured.
Let us recall the situation that for many centuries has outlined the problem of the relationship between academic scientific psychology and practical psychological knowledge in European culture. It is known that R. Descartes is a great philosopher and one of the founders European science, European rationalism - believed that there is no such science as psychology and cannot be. Our knowledge of the soul has a fundamentally non-scientific nature and cannot become the subject of theoretical scientific thinking. The source of this knowledge, according to Descartes, is practical experience, we gain it, “rotating in the light, traveling, etc.
Another great thinker, I. Kant, believed that scientific psychology is either impossible or uninteresting, meaningless. Such a psychology is capable of expressing such a tiny fraction of human experience that it has no practical use.
Omitting many lesser-known names, let me recall the position of Freud, who argued that psychoanalysis is impossible to learn: a real psychoanalyst is just as rare as a real artist, scientist, etc.
And, finally, let us cite the testimony of E. Berne, a famous modern psychologist, the founder of transactional analysis. He wrote that the practical psychological knowledge of a five-year-old child far exceeds the theoretical knowledge of a professor of psychology.
We must state a strange situation: the insignificance and lack of demand for our scientific academic psychological knowledge, on the one hand, and the boundless field of practical psychology, on the other.
There is a gap between the two worlds - academic scientific psychology and practical psychology. He outlines an immense area of ​​practical skills that psychological science is unable to adequately describe in its conceptual apparatus. Academic psychology has little that can give for understanding a number of key practical tasks facing a person: self-improvement, self-change, understanding the world and one's place in it. This imbalance is fundamental and is associated with the fundamental principles of classical science, as we understand it today. The fact is that these institutions were carried out in such a way that all our knowledge about nature from now on has a price: ignorance about the world of the soul, consciousness, personality.
Practical psychology is a system of methods, practices, abilities, skills, psychotechnics aimed at transforming social objects: restoring the integrity of consciousness, mental organization, personality activity, as well as influencing the state, attitudes, values ​​of small and large groups.
We understand that any definition limits, but at the same time is not limited to both the paradigm affiliation of practical psychology and the subject orientation. The range of problems that practical psychology deals with is truly global: intragroup conflicts, the problem of team formation, political elections, disorder in personal life, family troubles, adaptation problems, imageology, psychological and pedagogical problems at school, lack of self-confidence and self-esteem, frustration in decision-making, existential emptiness, difficulties in establishing and maintaining interpersonal relationships, age and situational crises, etc. The list is endless, since it reflects all the possible variety modern life society and man in society.
We have to reconsider our views on the strategy of practical psychology and personal growth. This is not a trivial question. There are many areas of practical psychology, a lot of practical psychologists, and each school has its own, sometimes directly opposite views on where the problems come from, what to do with them and offers its own style of working with a client. And, of course, each of these schools presents its position as scientific.
Imagine a person suffering from a situational crisis who goes first to the behaviorist, then to the psychoanalyst, then to the body-oriented therapist. And again, what will happen to a person who consistently turns to representatives of different directions of psychoanalysis? It is strange, but it is a fact that no one is worried about the lack of uniformity, of a holistic picture in practical psychology, while affirming the strict scientific character of all paradigmatic approaches.
According to A.V. Yurevich, pop psychology is the third global sociodigma in psychology, not reducible to the other two - to research (academic) and to practical psychology, and its main sources are:
1) academic psychology,
2) practical psychology,
3) esotericism,
4) common sense.
A.V. Yurevich refers the author of this article to the leaders of pop psychology, which, no doubt, is partly quite true.
Firstly, more than 16 thousand people attended the trainings and seminars of the author of the article. This is indeed a lot, it is already a people reflecting the socio-demographic, gender, age, and professional composition of Russia.
Secondly, among the directions that exist in the integrative paradigm of psychology, all four sources are clearly present.
Thirdly, integrative psychology, like the sociodigm of pop psychology, is addressed to the mass consciousness and the principle of “accessibility of the mental map” is important for its theoretical constructions.
In our opinion, science is not only a system of principles, methods and means of theoretical knowledge of reality, but also of practical impact on it. Knowledge is a "realized force" insofar as it can serve the needs of society and the individual. Psychology should be "commensurate" with the routine of human existence and instrumentally adapted to its problems of life in society. This is precisely the condition for its effectiveness.
However, there is a profound difference between the psychological and integrative vision of a person.
The psychological paradigm (in both theoretical and practical aspects) is ultimately rooted in mechanistic vision (be it a physiological, behavioral, or psychoanalytic schema). She works with an analytical picture of the psyche.
The integrative model, both at the explanatory and at the influencing levels, is rooted in a holistic, organic, holographic vision. She works with holistic, gestalt states.
The worldview eye of the integrative methodology is the principle of integrity, which implies the understanding of the psyche as an extremely complex, open, multilevel, self-organizing system that has the ability to maintain itself in a state of dynamic equilibrium and produce new structures and new forms of organization.
The concepts of "holistic approach", "holistic personality" have been used for a long time and by different directions and schools of psychology: from gestalt and humanistic psychology to domestic directions (cultural-historical, activity approaches, etc.). Probably, the very concepts “goal” and “whole” are etymologically related (in Greek τελός - accomplishment, completion; ending, highest point, limit, goal; τελειός - complete, complete, accomplished; final, extreme, perfect). The achievement of the goal at the same time means the completion of the action, the closing of the circle, the ascent to completeness, perfection, and beauty.
The goal is achieved when a perfect symmetric whole is built. Only at the present time, at the turn of the century, when knowledge about the human psyche is being replenished not only due to purely scientific research (in the general understanding of this), but also due to the hidden esoteric knowledge that has always existed as hidden, can we talk about a more holistic understanding of what is a person and his consciousness. And in this sense, the task of the psychologist (no matter what sociodigmatic affiliation), who is trying to understand the integrative methodology, is to learn to perceive fundamentally non-analytical, holistic formations.
Integrative psychology is associated, first of all, with spiritual practices, with a person developing, with the creation of new zones of freedom for a person through the psychotechnical development of the world. In this process, for the first time, new opportunities for action and circumstances are created, new free spaces, which, in fact, are instruments for further development. And each subsequent zone of freedom must be re-conquered by creative acts, and not by manipulative or reproductive actions.
Failed attempts to distinguish between spirituality and religion appear to be the single biggest source of misunderstandings about the relationship between academic psychology and religion. Spirituality is based on direct experiences of extraordinary dimensions of reality and does not necessarily require contact with the divine to be made in a specific location or through an officially designated person. It implies a very special relationship between the individual and the cosmos and is essentially a personal matter of a person.
Mystics base their beliefs on empirical evidence. They do not need churches and temples: the environment in which they experience the sacred dimensions of reality, including their deity, is their body and nature, and instead of an official priest, they need a supportive group of aspirants or the guidance of a teacher who is experienced in the inner journey. than they themselves.
All great religions have their origins in the visionary experiences of their founders, prophets, saints, and even ordinary followers. All of the greatest spiritual scriptures (Vedas, Upanishads, Pali Buddhist Canon, Bible, Quran, Book of Mormons, and many others) are based on direct personal revelation. As soon as religion becomes organized, it completely loses its connection with the spiritual source and turns into a secular institution that uses the spiritual needs of a person, not satisfying them. Instead, it creates a hierarchical system centered on power, control, politics, money, possession, and other worldly interests.
The biggest obstacle to the study of spiritual experiences (what Yurevich refers to as esotericism) is the fact that academic psychology is dominated by materialistic philosophy and methodology and lacks a true understanding of religion and spirituality. In an emphatic rejection of religion, they do not distinguish between primitive peoples beliefs or literal fundamentalist interpretations. scriptures and carefully developed mystical traditions or spiritual philosophical teachings of the East.
Academic psychology indiscriminately denied any spiritual concepts and types of activity, including even those that, for many centuries, were based on a systematic introspective study of the psyche. In many of the great mystical traditions, special methods of invoking spiritual experiences have been developed, and the correspondence of observations to theoretical conclusions is not worse than in modern academic psychology.
It is not necessary to think that, speaking of spiritual practices, we mean only meditation, deprivation techniques, austerity or prayer. In modern conditions, work, study, are methods of self-improvement, transformation, service and achievement of peak, creative states of consciousness.
The complexity of the subject of integrative psychology lies in the fact that the personality, its content, is not determined only by a set of characterological traits or some kind of problem state. As a rule, there are deeper unconscious structures behind the problems (gestalts, COEX systems, suppressed wholes, subpersonalities, scripts, etc.). Moreover, from an integrative point of view, they are a simultaneous consequence of the entire psychic reality, including not only personal, but also interpersonal and transpersonal megastructures.
The integrative methodology proceeds from the postulate that man is an integral being, that is, independent, capable of self-regulation and development. But man is not the only integral entity in the world. Everything in nature has integrity, nature itself is integral and is a hierarchy in which each element is "whole" in relation to its parts and "part" in relation to the larger whole. Both of these aspects of existence, both the part and the whole, must be fully expressed for the realization of the potentials of any being. Hence, man's craving is understandable to go beyond his limits, to transcend, to be, to feel, to be aware of himself as a part of the universe.
The principal integrative thesis is that the world is not a complex combination of discrete objects, but a single and indivisible network of events and relationships. And although our direct experience seems to tell us that we are dealing with real objects, in fact, we respond to sensory transformations of objects or messages of differences. As Gregory Bateson argues in his writings, thinking in terms of substance and discrete objects is a serious epistemological error. Information flows in circuits that go beyond the boundaries of individuality, and includes everything around. Thus, with an integrative view of the world, the emphasis shifts from substance and object to form, pattern and process, from being to becoming. The structure is a product of interacting processes, no more durable than a standing wave pattern at the confluence of two rivers. According to the integrative approach, the Universe is like a living organism, organs, tissues and cells of which make sense only in their relation to the whole.
The general meaning of the integrative approach is that the human psyche is a multilevel system that reveals in personally structured forms the experience of an individual biography, birth, as well as an unlimited field of consciousness that transcends matter, space, time and linear causality. Consciousness is an integrating open system that allows you to combine various areas of the mental into integral semantic spaces.
The integrity of the personality implies taking into account all its manifestations (according to at least, those that have already been described, perhaps studied, but not fully explained): biogenetic, sociogenetic, personogenetic, interpersonal and transpersonal (the latter two, in our opinion, include a number of features that are still little accepted by official science, but are no longer denied as non-existent). If we talk about the existence of such a person, then it has existed for centuries and exists in our time (regardless of scientific fabrications and educational systems, it is true, more often distorted by them, but functioning integratively and holistically).
Practical methods of socio-psychological work using an integrative approach include a wide range of psychological techniques, common to which is the use of personal resource potential. Modern stage development of psychology puts forward a number of cardinal tasks for the scientific and methodological understanding of the formed approaches and the search for new fundamental ideas that integrate various scientific areas.
In a sense, it can be argued that psychology is experiencing a kind of "growth crisis" similar to the crisis of physics at the beginning of the 20th century. In our opinion, the resolution of this crisis is associated not so much with the search for new facts or patterns, but with new methodological approaches and a new level of understanding of human consciousness as an integral system.
The integrative approach is a fundamentally new semantic space for both professionals (psychologists, social workers, psychotherapists) and their clients.
Any theory, concept, therapeutic myth, doctrine, idea, everyday judgment about psychic reality, with their often seeming completeness and universality, are valid only under certain circumstances and with a certain degree of probability. It should be remembered that as the most ingenious psychological theories and the statements of some clients about the "evil eye", "damage" are, first of all, an attempt to structure and broadcast their own internal experience.
The ultimate awareness of relativity and at the same time the truth of any understanding of the mental frees the specialist from dogmas and brings him closer to the point of integration, and reflexive understanding and acceptance - to integrative psychology. Our minds produce explanations, and reality accepts any of them condescendingly.
As a first approximation, we want to state that integrative psychology is not a set of rules that determines the process of psychological work, but rather a direction of professional thinking, a philosophical and psychological trend that has practical application.
At the end of the 20th century, losing its usual materialistic methodology and experiencing the influence of many areas of foreign science, Russian psychology risked, with an uncritical perception of everything foreign, to lose its definiteness of purpose and clarity of guidelines. Today, as never before, there is a need for historical continuity and methodological predestination when choosing the paths of development of psychology. Integrative psychology fully satisfies these conditions.
We already understand that our representation of man as a living, open, complex, multi-level self-organizing system with the ability to maintain itself in a state of dynamic equilibrium and generate new structures and new forms of organization is a new categorical understanding of traditional holistic approaches in theology and philosophy. In our opinion, any psychological practice should adhere to the integrative paradigm of building science, that is, a system, the methodological basis of which is an integral model of the Universe and human consciousness.
It was the integrative approach that significantly changed philosophy natural sciences at the beginning of the twentieth century. The development of such areas as quantum mechanics, relativistic physics, catastrophe theory and models of strange attractors in mathematics, laser technology has greatly transformed the approach to scientific research. The very idea of ​​the object and subject of scientific experience has undergone significant changes. The fundamental impossibility of separating the observer from the object of observation and the fundamental relationship of objects and phenomena, traditionally considered completely independent in the Newtonian-Cartesian paradigm of science, have revolutionized the scientific view of the world.
In the field of the science of consciousness, new approaches, originating in the philosophy of quantum mechanics and relativistic physics, are surprisingly close to the philosophy and methodology of Eastern philosophical schools. First of all, it should be noted the Buddhist ideas about the interconnectedness of all phenomena, mutual being and the impossibility of identifying the fate of an individual.
In our opinion, it is the integrative paradigm that can become the methodological basis, both in the development of psychological practices and in the academic psychological science of the 21st century.
Integrative psychology is an approach that restores a holistic vision of psychic reality that was temporarily destroyed in the 19th century with the help of varieties of materialistic reductionism (from scientific materialism to behaviorism and Marxism), including not only a person, but also interpersonal and transpersonal levels of functioning. We must take into account the bitter lesson when an attempt to reduce psychic being to her lower level, matter, had an especially unpleasant effect on psychology, which first lost its spirit, then its soul, then its mind and was reduced to the study of only empirical behavior and bodily drives.
The main task to be solved first of all is to develop a model of the methodology of psychological science oriented towards integration, i.e. reflective and empathic connection:
- various paradigms, directions within the framework of academic scientific psychology;
- different directions practical psychology;
- academic, scientific psychology and practice-oriented concepts, concepts of psychotherapy;
- scientific psychology and those branches of psychology that do not belong to traditional academic science (transpersonal, exoteric and esoteric circles of knowledge in spiritual traditions);
- scientific psychology and art, philosophy, methodological and technical delights of the exact sciences.
The first step is the development of an integrative scientific model and methodological apparatus that allows one to really correlate various approaches both within psychological science and those that implement other semantic forms of psychological knowledge, including ordinary, profane, knowledge that Yurevich calls "common sense."
The first step in the formation of an integrative methodology and at the same time a way of professional development of a psychologist is integrativity, openness to knowledge as a system-forming principle.
The second step is the formation of that psychological worldview, in accordance with the positions of which various schools of philosophy, psychology, anthropology, psychotherapy, both academic and all other forms of psychological knowledge, are understood not as competitive, mutually exclusive disciplines, but as approaches that are fair and applicable in in certain areas of psychic reality, in a certain culture, in certain spatio-temporal meaning-and-activity situations of the functioning of the mental - integrative psychology.
And the third most important step is the formation of that multifaceted educational environment in which a holistic, universal personality of a psychologist, a carrier of integrative methodology as a model of the world, can grow.
Without a doubt, the carriers of integrative psychology will be those who can expand their horizons, pushing their boundaries outward (working through their persona to self-realization) and inward (through perinatal matrices, interspersonal and transpersonal), all the time rebuilding the map of their soul and expanding its territory to levels of "complete identity" (Grof), Full Consciousness (Kozlov), Mind (Wilber).
And it seems to me that the integration of such a level should be assessed as the highest achievement of psychological knowledge, for which we must recognize the same privileges that the creative genius of W. James, S. Freud, K. Levin, A. Maslow, K. Rogers, St. . Grof.
In all small and large psychological teachings there is a unity in intention that embraces differences.
The unity of theory and practice of psychology should be built on the basis of productive diversity and vitality.
Let all the trees and flowers grow. It is foolish to strive to make the flowers and trees of the same garden the same and evaluate their differences as imperfections.
May all theories and practices of psychology flourish. They are multifaceted and multicolored, multifaceted and polyphonic, constitute the aroma and beauty of modern psychology.
And, if our mental gaze suddenly succeeds in collecting the diversity of psychologies into a single mandala of science.
And, if suddenly psychologists are filled with strength to transcend and unite the greatest opposites.
And, if suddenly the eyes of a psychologist will be wide open to other (alien) relationships and understandings of the subject of psychology, just as the eyes of a child are open to the action of life.
Then we will meet a psychologist.
And integrative psychology.
1.Yurevich A.V. Pop psychology. // Questions of psychology. 2007. T. 26.No. 1.P. 79-87.
2.Yurevich A.V. Science and parascience: a collision on the "territory" of psychology // Psychol. journal T. 26. No. 1. S. 79-87.
3. Yurevich A. V. Systemic crisis of psychology // Vopr. psychol. 1999. No. 2. S. 3-11.

ACTUAL TOPIC

Mazilov Vladimir Alexandrovich

Doctor of Psychology, Professor Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushinsky

v. m [email protected]

PRACTICAL AND ACADEMIC PSYCHOLOGY: PROSPECTS FOR FURTHER COOPERATION

The article is devoted to the discussion of the issue of the relationship between academic psychology and practical psychology. It is argued that the mismatch between them is normal and natural: these are two different types of activities, they have different goals and objectives, "missions", different methodology.

There is no paradigmatic opposition between academic and practical psychology: it is a disguised “classical” rivalry between the natural science and hermeneutic paradigms. It is argued that the effective resolution of the opposition between paradigms is possible when revising the subject of psychology. An interpretation of the subject of psychology as the inner world of a person is proposed.

Key words: academic psychology, practical psychology, paradigms, natural science paradigm, hermeneutic (humanitarian) paradigm.

In recent decades, there has been an intensive and steady growth of the psychotherapeutic movement in our country. Various psychotherapeutic practices have become leading part of the world of practical psychology. In this article, we will consider the relationship that develops in recent times between practice-oriented psychology and traditional academic psychology, by which we mean theoretical and experimental scientific psychology.

Before we start discussing issues related to the relationship between academic and practice-oriented psychology, we believe it is necessary to make a few comments.

First. It seems to us that there is nothing extraordinary in the fact that there is a gap (divergence, schism, dissociation) between academic psychology (theoretical-experimental, research), on the one hand, and practical psychology, on the other. In our opinion, this is natural, since these are two different types of activities, they have different goals and objectives, "missions", different methodology. Let us recall, by the way, that the traditional approach defines methodology as a system of "principles and methods of organizing and constructing theoretical and practical activities, as well as the teaching about this system." This definition is reproduced in a number of modern psychological dictionaries in relation to the methodology of psychology. It follows that there should be a methodology of theoretical (academic) psychology and a methodology of practice-oriented psychology. This is completely normal. There is no need to dramatize, this is the same natural state as the crisis of psychology.

Second. It seems to us that practical psychology is also "scientific", only in a different standard. We will try to dwell on the discussion of this difficult issue below.

Third. Many who write and discuss psychological practice do it as if nothing is known about it at all. This, at least, is not entirely true, for there are serious studies. Psychological practice - like any practice - has its own theory, and if this is not the concept of academic science, then there must be reasons for this. Therefore, in some respects, academic knowledge does not meet the specific requirements for the basis of practice. As it was shown in due time, various mythologies can act as such a basis for practices. Again, nothing terrible happens, it is worth trying to understand why this is happening and why academic knowledge does not satisfy "practical" needs.

The assertion that there are significant differences between academic psychology and practice-oriented psychology is by no means new. If desired, the origins of this opposition can be seen in the fact that psychology, according to Max Dessouard, has different roots. It is possible, following M.S. Rogovin, to see these origins in the tragic mismatch of the three components of psychology. Indeed, it seems that pre-scientific, philosophical and scientific psychology as components of modern psychology as a whole have their own tasks, methods, functions, it is absolutely necessary to take into account the specifics of which. For the normal development of psychology as a whole, the interaction of these three components is necessary: ​​together they constitute a "space of meanings" that allow representing "mental reality" not partially, but in in full.

In 1996, the famous article by F.E. Vasilyuk, from which the modern count of the analysis of this problem is usually calculated. In this striking article, recall, it was argued that there is

© Mazilov V.A., 2015

ACTUAL TOPIC

schism between academic and practical psychology. It seems to us that we should not forget that O.K. Tikhomirov was the first in the modern history of Russian psychology to pose the problem of the relationship between academic and practical psychology, and he considered it as a problem of world psychological science. “The ratio of theoretical, or academic, psychology and practical psychology. Two areas are torn apart in the structure of world psychological science. This gap is institutionalized. There are two international associations. One is called the Association for Scientific Psychology, the other is the Association for Applied Psychology. They gather in different cities, with a different composition (sometimes it can overlap). " As a result, the practical work of psychologists is built without relying on theories developed in academic psychology. Academic psychology, accordingly, does not sufficiently analyze and assimilate the experience of practical psychology. It should be noted that the relationship between academic and practice-oriented psychology is widely discussed in the periodicals today, the problem is still acutely relevant today. At the same time, researchers very often, unfortunately, do not remember that it was O.K. Tikhomirov back in 1992.

The title of this article, which received a very wide response, is "The methodological meaning of psychological schism." Schismis - the splitting of psychology - is interpreted by F.E. Vasilyuk as a characteristic of its current state in our country: “Unfortunately, it is not a crisis that has to be diagnosed, but the schism of our psychology, its splitting. Psychological practice and psychological science live parallel life as two subpersonalities of a dissociated personality ... ". F.E. Vasilyuk emphasizes that “the most dangerous thing that preserves the whole situation and first of all needs to be corrected is that neither the researchers nor the practitioners themselves see the scientific, theoretical, methodological significance of practice. Meanwhile, for psychology now there is nothing more theoretical than good practice. "

The main idea of ​​the aforementioned article is that “psychotechnical research is the most relevant and healing for our psychology, that their significance is not at all reduced to the development of effective methods and methods of influencing human consciousness, but consists primarily in the development of a general psychological methodology. "

In a recent study by A.L. Zhuravlev and D.V. Ushakov under the significant title "Theoretical, Experimental and Practical

psychology: two different paradigms? " the question is raised whether these two psychologies represent two different paradigms. The conclusion of the researchers is that "academic and practical psychology each work according to its own standards, and in this sense, their characterization as different paradigms is legitimate." The authors make an important observation, according to which the application of T. Kuhn's views to psychology requires their clarification and modification. “The point is rather that T. Kuhn's concepts are not subtle enough to characterize the situation in psychology. It should be noted that this is hardly related to the specifics of psychology. In particular, P. Feyerabend criticized T. Kuhn for underestimating the fact of the parallel existence of research traditions ... ”.

It seems to us that there is no need to talk about the opposition of academic and practical psychology as a paradigmatic confrontation already because there is no competition between them, since each occupies its own niche. If this or that kind of practical psychology does not have its own theory, then, most likely, some mythology will take this place, but it is very unlikely that this will turn out to be any scientific concept. For they have different tasks. And they are different in their structure.

And if we talk about paradigmatic confrontation, then it will be, with a high degree of probability, another confrontation between the natural science paradigm (which in this case appears through some theory from "academic" psychology) and hermeneutic (which stands behind some practice-oriented psychology).

Thus, it seems to us that the conflict - if it exists - lies in the plane of opposition of the paradigms of scientific psychology. Indeed, both natural-scientific and hermeneutic psychology are scientific - but by different standards of scientificity.

However, quite enough has already been written about this.

Practical psychology at the present time, as it can be assumed, is in a state of being formed into an independent discipline. According to V.N. Druzhinin, practical psychology and today partly remains an art, partly based on applied psychology as a system of knowledge and scientifically based methods for solving practical problems. On the whole, this statement is valid even today, although many years have passed: practical psychology is extremely heterogeneous and, undoubtedly, includes the named components. But, as can be assumed, the formation of practical psychology as a special direction within psychological science is currently taking place. With the extreme heterogeneity of practical psy-

Bulletin of KSU named after ON. Nekrasova Ji> 2015, Volume 21

Practical and Academic Psychology: Prospects for Further Cooperation

chology (as such are elements of academic psychology, "supplemented" with examples "from life", and applied psychology as such, and various kinds of unscientific concepts based on esoteric teachings, mysticism, astrology, etc., and the so-called " pop-psychology "- psychology for the general reader, etc.), nevertheless, today we can talk about the formation of a paradigm of practical psychology itself as a branch of psychological science with specific goals and objectives, methods, ways of explanation, etc. ...

It seems promising to sketch this paradigm. So what is practical psychology today? First, it is a discipline that is defined not through an object, but through an object. In practical terms, it is always more important to give a general (holistic) characterization of the personality. In medicine, law, pedagogy, art, etc. it is much more important to determine who is in front of you than to follow the historically established (therefore inevitably historically limited) canons of scientificity. It is pertinent to note that this is usually the "standard" that has been formed and shaped in the natural sciences. In accordance with such a standard, a "cell" is singled out, from which the sought "whole" should be "built". Let us recall that even V. Dilthey at the end of the 19th century warned that such a strategy in the field of psychology is not very promising. Therefore, practical psychology proceeds not from an object, but from an object. The object is fundamentally complete. It seems to us that some clarifications are needed here. Let's try to give them. The subject of scientific academic psychology is traditionally considered either psyche or behavior (depending on which scientific school the interviewed psychologist-researcher belongs to). This is at the level of declarations. In reality, either behavioral phenomena (accessible to external observation) or the phenomena of self-awareness (which are recorded through self-observation) are subject to study. Based on this real subject, a hypothetical construction is built - for example, the subject of science. As a rule, this is the result mental activity knowing, that is, something that has a mediated character (for example, the same psyche). From this elementary subject, the entire wealth of phenomena related to the sphere of this science should be deduced - an aggregate subject. It is important to emphasize that a real aggregate object is obtained as a result of "constructive" (in the sense of W. Dilthey) activity. Thus, in this case, the path of science: from "units" to "whole". In practical psychology, the path is fundamentally the opposite. This is achieved due to the fact that not an object, but an object is taken as a source. Volume

ect is fundamentally complete. Schemes used practical psychologist, focused not on the subject, but on the object. (Note that in accordance with the principles of practical psychology focused on the subject-subject approach, the integral object to which the schemes are applied is represented by the subject).

Personality acts as an object (in practical psychology). It should be specially emphasized that the understanding of personality in practical psychology is significantly different from the interpretation of personality in academic psychology (at least ten fundamental differences can be indicated). As a practice-oriented area of ​​knowledge, it proceeds from the idea of ​​an integral object, not trying to "build" it out of supposed (and, naturally, hypothetical) "units", but trying to cover it as a whole. Hence follows a specific method: it can be defined as humanistic, suggesting a dialogue between the researcher and the researcher (since the latter is the bearer of consciousness), and ignoring this circumstance is at least short-sighted. Integrity and typology can be called the initial principles of practical psychology (as opposed to the "elementary" and "constructivism" of scientific psychology, which were recorded by W. Dilthey). As an ideal of scientificity, practical psychology has a description and prediction (of the behavior of a person), not an explanation. He sees as a means not the construction of scientific models, but the development of typologies (numerous, for various reasons), the classification and description of individual cases.

It is hardly worth emphasizing that the ultimate goal of practical psychology is to reach psychotechnics and psychotechnology, since practical psychology studies its own object in order to change it in one way or another (note in parentheses that the goal of academic psychology is to discover common laws and "fit" the subject of study into the general picture of the world). Naturally, the idea of ​​the “final product” also differs: in academic psychology, this is the construction of the most convincing scientific model in which the general “laws of life” of a scientific subject are embodied; a different qualification of the "individual" case.

We believe that effective interaction between practical and scientific psychology will be possible thanks to the methodology, and the communicative methodology. This requires a theoretical development of the problem of the subject of psychology. In our opinion, it is necessary to create a theoretical model of the subject of psychology.

Pedagogy. Psychology. Social work. Juvenology. Sociokinetics number 2

ACTUAL TOPIC

It is about the development of a new understanding of the subject of psychology. Both the researcher in the field of psychophysics and the researcher in the field of transpersonal psychology clearly represent the same science - psychology. Now one gets the impression that these are representatives of completely different sciences, tk. they are all different. Therefore, the understanding of the subject of psychology should be such that there is a place in it for both one and the other. Only such an understanding will make it possible to combine the achievements of psychologists from different schools and directions. Without such an understanding, it is impossible to generalize the vast amounts of knowledge accumulated in psychology. This is a very difficult task. By the way, it is common for Russian and for world psychology (with all the differences in approaches to the study of the psyche). Correlation and ordering of the available material on the basis of new understanding will allow psychology to become a fundamental science.

In solving this problem, two aspects can be distinguished, or rather, two stages of its solution. The first stage is a formal description of the subject (what functions it should perform, what criteria it should meet). Most of this work has already been done. The second stage is the content filling of the concept “subject of psychology”. Work in this direction is already underway. What exactly will this new item be called? It seems that the most successful term is "the inner world of a person." An attempt has been made to present the inner world of a person as an object of psychology, since it is it that allows, in our opinion, to carry out meaningful filling, containing all psychic reality in full. Many methodological problems of psychology are generated by the main unresolved - the development of a new understanding of the subject. Opposition of paradigms, differences between natural science and humanistic orientations in psychology, etc. - these major problems are largely the consequences of the unresolved issue of the main issue of psychology. The problem of the subject is really, to paraphrase the classic, the main question of all, especially of the latest psychology.

A textbook for future psychologists has been prepared. When preparing this textbook, a new understanding of the subject of psychology as the inner world of a person was used. This textbook examines the concept of "the inner world of a person", it is shown that the inner world reflects the existence of a person and is formed in the processes of life. Developing in activity and deeds, it is characterized by functionality and efficiency. Everything mental processes in the inner world occur simultaneously on two levels: conscious and unconscious. The inner world, on the one hand, is one with the outer world, on the other -

independent of him. Inner world generated as a functional reflection outside world, represents a complete ideal world. This is a living world, as it is generated by human needs and is permeated with experiences.

The inner world as a substantial essence, characterized by stability, acts as an abiding essence and its manifestations, as an entity, the cause of which is in itself, existing as the cause of itself. From the standpoint of the inner world, the problems that psychology studies are well explained.

Bibliographic list

1. Vasilyuk F.E. Methodological meaning of psychological schism // Questions of psychology. -1996. - No. 6. - P. 25-40.

2. Dessouard M. Essay on the history of psychology. -SPb .: Knigopizd. O. Bogdanova, 1912 .-- 218 p.

3. Zhuravlev A.L., Ushakov D.V. Theoretical and experimental and practical psychology: two different paradigms? // Paradigms in psychology. Scientific analysis. - M .: Institute of Psychology RAS, 2012 .-- S. 158-177.

4. Mazilov V.A. Paradigms in psychology: from history to the present // Paradigms in psychology. Scientific analysis. - M .: Institute of Psychology RAS, 2012. - S 57-94.

5. Mazilov V.A. On the subject of psychology // Methodology and history of psychology. - 2006. - T. 1. - Iss. 1. - S. 55-72.

6. Mazilov V.A. Actual methodological problems of modern psychology // Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin. - 2013. - T. 2. - No. 2. -S. 149-155.

7. Mazilov VA Methodology of modern psychology: actual problems // Siberian psychological journal. - 2013. - No. 50. - S. 8-16.

8. Mazilov V.A. Prospects for paradigmatic synthesis in modern psychology // Yaroslavl Pedagogical Bulletin. - 2013. - № 3. - T. 2: Psychological and pedagogical sciences. - S. 186-194.

9. Mazilov V.A. Theory and method in psychology. -Yaroslavl: MAPN, 1998 .-- 356 p.

10. Rogovin M. S. Introduction to Psychology. - M .: Higher school, 1969 .-- 384 p.

11. Spirkin A.G., Yudin E.G., Yaroshevsky M.G. Methodology // Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary. - M., 1989 .-- S. 359-360.

12. Modern Psychology: A Reference Guide. - M .: Infra-M, 1999 .-- 683 p.

13. Tikhomirov O.K. Concepts and principles of general psychology. - M .: Moscow State University, 1992 .-- 92 p.

14. Shadrikov V.D. The world of a person's inner life. - M .: Logos, 2006 .-- 392 p.

15. Shadrikov V.D., Mazilov V.A. General Psychology: A Textbook for Academic Bachelor's Degree. - M .: Yurayt, 2015 .-- 411 p.

Bulletin of KSU named after ON. Nekrasova Ji> 2015, Volume 21