Vygotsky’s analysis of the crisis in psychology is an important methodological milestone in the development of his cultural historical theory. Therefore, discussing his work would entail including an examination of this analysis from a methodological point of view. This study emphasises the significance of the Marxist method in Vygotsky’s analysis of the crisis in psychology – in the emergence of the social character of psychological knowledge, in the critical approach to the different currents of the time, and in the search for new ways to creatively develop the science of psychology.
AgeyevV. S. (2003). Vygotsky in the mirror of cultural interpretations. In KozulinA.GindisB.AgeyevV. S.MillerS. M. (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 432–449). Cambridge University Press.
2.
AlleschC. G. (2012). Hans Driesch and the problems of “normal psychology”. Rereading his crisis in psychology (1925). Studies in history and philosophy of biological and biomedical sciences, 43(2), 455–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.004
3.
AndersonH. (1997). Conversation, language, and possibilities: A postmodern approach to therapy. Basic Books.
4.
BakhurstD. (1991). Consciousness and revolution in soviet philosophy: From the Bolsheviks to Evald Ilyenkov. Cambridge University Press.
5.
BinswangerL. (1922). Einführung in die probleme der allgemeinen psychologie. Springer.
6.
BrockA. C. (2011). Psychology’s path towards a mature science: An examination of the myths. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 31(4), 250–257. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025590
7.
BrunerJ. (1984). Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development: The hidden agenda. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 1984, 93–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.23219842309
8.
BrunerJ. (1987). Prologue to the English edition. In RieberR.CartonA. (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Volume 1. Problems of general psychology (pp. 1–17). Plenum.
BühlerK. (1927). Die Krise der psychologie. Gustav Fischer.
11.
CarsonJ. (2012). Has psychology “found its true path”? Methods, objectivity, and cries of “crisis” in early twentieth-century French psychology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(2), 445–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.003
12.
CollierA. (1998). Language, practice and realism. In ParkerI. (Ed.), Social constructionism, discourse and realism. Sage Publications.
13.
CostaE. D.TuleskiS. C. (2017). Constructionist interpretation of Vygotsky: A theoretical-methodological study of the concept of language. In RatnerC.SilvaD. N. H. (Eds.), Vygotsky and Marx: Toward a Marxist psychology (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276632
14.
DafermosM. (2014). Vygotsky’s analysis of the crisis in psychology: Diagnosis, treatment, and relevance. Theory and Psychology, 24(2), 147–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354314523694
15.
DafermosM. (2015). Critical reflection on the reception of Vygotsky’s theory in the international academic communities. In SelauB.Fonseca de CastroR. (Eds.), Cultural-historical theory: Educational research in different contexts (pp. 19–38). EDIPUCRS.
16.
DafermosM. (2018). Rethinking cultural-historical theory: A dialectical perspective to Vygotsky. Springer Singapore.
17.
DavydovD. D.RadzikhovskiiL. A. (1985). Intellectual origins of Vygotsky’s semiotic analysis of mind. In WertschJ. V. (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: A Vygotskian perspective (pp. 94–118). Cambridge University Press.
18.
DrieschH. A. E. (1925). The crisis in psychology. Princeton University Press.
19.
EbbinghausH. (1902). Grundzüge der psychologie. Veit and Co.
20.
EdwardsM. G. (2016). Vygotsky’s warning: General science and the need for metalevel research. Mind, Culture and Activity, 23(2), 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/10749039.2015.1087571
21.
EngelsF. (1969). Ludwig Feuerbach and the end of classical German philosophy. Progress Publishers. (Original work published 1888).
22.
FeestU. (2012). Husserl’s crisis as a crisis of psychology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(2), 493–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.008
23.
FeigenbaumP. (2017). What makes Vygotsky’s theory of psychology a Marxist theory? In RatnerC.SilvaD. N. H. (Eds.), Vygotsky and Marx: Toward a Marxist psychology (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315276632
24.
FoxD.PrilleltenskyI. (Eds.). (1997). Critical psychology: An introduction. Sage Publications, Inc.
25.
GergenK. J. (1994). Realities and relationships: Soundings in social construction. Harvard University Press.
26.
González ReyF. L. (2014). Advancing further the history of Soviet psychology: Moving forward from dominant representations in Western and Soviet psychology. History of Psychology, 17(1), 60–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035565
27.
GundlachH. (2012). Bühler revisited in times of war--Peter R. Hofstätte’s the crisis of psychology (1941). Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(2), 504–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.009
28.
HarréR. (2000). Personalism in the context of a social constructionist psychology: Stern and Vygotsky. Theory and Psychology, 10(6), 731–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354300106002
29.
HatfieldG. (2012). Koffka, Köhler, and the “crisis” in psychology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(2), 483–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.005
30.
HymanL. (2012). Vygotsky’s crisis: Argument, context, relevance. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(2), 473–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.007
31.
JonesP. E. (2000). The dialectics of the ideal and symbolic mediation. In OittinenV. (Ed.), Evald Ilyenkov’s philosophy revisited (pp. 205–227). Kikimora Publications.
32.
JonesP. E. (2001). The ideal in cultural-historical activity theory: Issues and perspectives. In ChaiklinS. (Ed.), The theory and practice of cultural-historical psychology (pp. 283–2231). Aarhus University Press.
33.
KoffkaK. (1926). Die Krisis in der psychologie. Bemerkungen zu dem Buch Gleichen Namens von Hans Driesch. Naturwissenschaften, 14, 581–586. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01507197
34.
KostyleffN. (1911). La crise de la psychologie expérimentale. Alcan.
35.
KozulinA. (2016). Foreward. In YasnitskyA.van der VeerR. (Eds.), Revisionist revolution in Vygotsky studies. The state of the art (pp. xii–xvii). Routledge. Taylor and Francis.
36.
KvaleS. (1992). Postmodern psychology: A contradiction in terms? In KvaleS. (Ed.), Psychology and postmodernism (pp. 31–57). Sage Publications, Inc.
37.
LeninV. (1961). Collected works (Vol. 38). Foreign Languages Publishing House. (Original work published 1929).
38.
LeninV. (1963). Collected works (Vol. 19). Progress Publishers. (Original work published 1913).
39.
LeninV. (1975). The tasks of the youth leagues. Foreign Languages Press. (Original work published 1920).
40.
LeninV. (1977). Collected works (Vol. 14). Progress Publishers. (Original work published 1908).
41.
LeontievA. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Prentice-Ha.
42.
LevitinK. (1982). One is not born a personality profiles of soviet education psychologists. Progress.
43.
LewinK. (1931). Der Übergang von der aristotelischen zur galileischen sichtweise in biologie und psychologie. Erkenntnis, 1, 421–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00208633
44.
MandlerG. (2011). Crises and problems seen from experimental psychology. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Psychology, 31(4), 240–246. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023968
45.
MarxK. (1981). Capital (Vol. 3). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1894).
46.
MarxK. (1982). Capital (Vol. 1). Penguin Books. (Original work published 1867).
47.
MarxK. (1998). Theses on Feuerbach. In MarxK.EngelsF. (Eds.), The German ideology, including theses on Feuerbach and introduction to the critique of political economy. Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1888).
48.
MatusovE. (2007). In search of ‘The appropriate’ unit of analysis for sociocultural research. Culture and Psychology, 13(3), 307–333. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x07079887
49.
MatusovE. (2008). Applying a sociocultural approach to Vygotskian academia: ‘Our tsar isn’t like yours, and yours isn’t like ours’. Culture and Psychology, 14(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x07085808
50.
MülbergerA. (2012). Wundt contested: The first crisis declaration in psychology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(2), 434–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.002
51.
ProiettoM.LombardoG. P. (2015). The “crisis” of psychology between fragmentation and integration: The Italian case. Theory and Psychology, 25(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0959354315578726
52.
RatnerC. (2006). Cultural Psychology. A perspective on psychological functioning and social reform. Lawrence Erlbaum associates, Inc.
53.
RatnerC. (2019). Psychology’s contribution to socio-cultural, political, and individual emancipation. Palgrave Macmillan Publishers.
54.
RatnerC.Pavón-CuéllarD.Ríos-MartínezK. M. (2020). The politics of realism and social constructionism in psychology. Psychotherapy and Politics International, 18(1), Article e1522. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppi.1522
ShotterJ. (1993a). Harré, Vygotsky, Bakhtin, Vico, Wittgenstein: Academic discourses and conversational realities. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 23(4), 459–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5914.1993.tb00544.x
SturmT. (2012). Bühler and Popper: Kantian therapies for the crisis in psychology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(2), 462–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.006
61.
SturmT.MülbergerA. (2012). Crisis discussions in psychology--new historical and philosophical perspectives. Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(2), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsc.2011.11.001
62.
TolmanC. (1992). Positivism in psychology: Historical and contemporary problems. Springer-Verlag Publishing.
63.
ToomelaA. (2000). Activity theory is a dead end for cultural-historical psychology. Culture and Psychology, 6(3), 353–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x0063005
64.
ToomelaA. (2008). Commentary: Vygotskian cultural-historical and sociocultural approaches represent two levels of analysis: Complementarity instead of opposition. Culture and Psychology, 14(1), 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354067x07085812
65.
van der VeerR.ZavershnevaE. (2011). To Moscow with love: Partial reconstruction of Vygotsky’s trip to London. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 45(4), 458–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12124-011-9173-8
66.
van der VeerR.ValsinerJ. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Blackwell Publishing.
67.
VeresovN. (1999). Undiscovered Vygotsky: Etudes on the pre-history of cultural-historical psychology. Peter Lang.
68.
VeresovN. (2005). Marxist and non-Marxist aspects of the cultural-historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky. Outlines. Critical Practice Studies, 7(1), 31–49. https://doi.org/10.7146/ocps.v7i1.2110
69.
VygotskyL. S. (1976). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press.
70.
VygotskyL. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In RieberR. W.CartonA. S. (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 39–285). Plenum Press.
71.
VygotskyL. S. (1994). The socialist alteration of man. In van der VeerR.ValsinerJ. (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 175–185). Blackwell Publishers.
72.
VygotskyL. S. (1997). The historical meaning of the crisis of psychology. In RieberR. W.WollockJ. (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 233–344). Plenum Press.
73.
WertschJ. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Harvard University Press.
74.
WillyR. (1897). Die Krisis in der psychologie (first and second article). Vierteljahrsschrift für Wissenschaftliche Philosophie, 21(79–96), 227–353.
75.
WillyR. (1899). Die Krisis in der psychologie. Reisland.
76.
WundtW. (1904). Reden und Aufsätze. Kröne.
77.
YaroshevskyΜ. (1989). Lev Vygotsky. Progress Publishers.
78.
YasnitskyA. (2010). “Archival revolution” in Vygotskian studies? Uncovering Vygotsky’s archives. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48(1), 3–13. https://doi.org/10.2753/rpo1061-0405480100
ZavershnevaE. (2010a). The Vygotsky family archive: New findings. Notebooks, notes, and scientific journals of L. S. Vygotsky (1912–1934). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48(1), 34–60. https://doi.org/10.2753/rpo1061-0405480102
81.
ZavershnevaE. (2010b). “The way to freedom” (on the publication of documents from the family archive of Lev Vygotsky). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48(1), 61–90. https://doi.org/10.2753/rpo1061-0405480103
82.
ZavershnevaE. (2012). Investigating L. S. Vygotsky’s manuscript “The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology”. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 50(4), 42–63. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405500402
83.
ZavershnevaE.Van der VeerR. (2018). Vygotsky’s notebooks: A selection. Springer.
84.
ZavershnevaE. Iu.OsipovM. E. (2012). Primary changes to the version of “The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology” published in the collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 50(4), 64–84. https://doi.org/10.2753/RPO1061-0405500403
85.
ZinchenkoV. P. (1985). Vygotsky’s ideas about units for the analysis of mind. In WertschJ. V. (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition: A Vygotskian perspective (pp. 94–118). University Press.
