Introduction

In Russia currently, activity theory is being criticized wholesale by some philosophers and psychologists because it is alleged to be an expression of totalitarian ideology. Among these critics are people who were themselves not long ago advocates of activity theory. They are referring mainly to such versions of activity theory as those of A. N. Leont'ev (1978) and P. J. Gal'perin (1992). These conceptions are interpreted by the critics as representing humans not as creative beings but as simple executors of plans, orders, and standards imposed from outside.

These critics think that activity theory, with its stress on actions, operations, and internalization of ready-made standards of behavior and cognition, corresponds to what command socialism demanded of people, namely, to be simple executors.

I think that this criticism is justified to a certain degree. It is possible to show that some versions of activity theory (in particular the conception of Leont'ev) are one-sided. It is true that the formulation and elaboration of some ideas of this theory in the 1930s and 1940s were influenced by the ideological situation in the USSR. This, by the way, does not mean that all ideas that are ideologically stimulated and influenced must be false: Most fruitful hypotheses in the history of science were influenced by their nonscientific context.

At the same time, I only partly agree with these critics. First, not all the ideas of Leont'ev and Gal'perin are outdated.