p So far we have concentrated on cognitive activity being most intimately linked with the existence and functioning of a special socio-cultural world of mediator objects. A question, however, may naturally arise here: does not this approach ignore the indubitable fact that cognition is not only realised by separate individuals but as often as not takes place “within” consciousness, without any immediate external manifestation? One is not obliged to inform anyone about the results of one’s perception of some object, not to mention the fact that this perception may contain shadings of emotion that are hard to express objectively. Although the process of thinking is apparently impossible without some instruments of objectification (signs of the natural language pronounced or recorded on paper, mathematical symbols, etc.), we mostly think without speaking.

p Interesting ideas usually emerge from the depths of consciousness, and their verbal formulation often requires hard work. Generally speaking, the existence of the subjective world of one’s own consciousness is obvious to anyone: it is an inalienable attribute of the subject and differs not only from the world of real objects but also from the external object-directed and objectively expressed actions of the subject.

p These indubitable facts cannot of course be negated. We have already pointed out that the implementation of the act of cognition assumes the subject distinguishing himself from the object cognized, which implies, among other things, distinguishing real objects from the subjective states of consciousness. But to make this differentiation possible, the subjective world must be present, it must exist. The fact is, however, that the subjective world, the world of consciousness, is by no means given from the very outset. At the early stages of individual development of the psyche the subject is not yet given the world of objective things distinct from himself and leading a life of their own. And for this reason the subject himself and the world of his consciousness do not exist for the subject. There is no subjective world at this stage of development. The outstanding Soviet psychologist L. S. Vygotsky, who relied on the fundamental propositions of Marxist philosophy, expressed an idea’^^34^^ that later became the basis of numerous theoretical and practical developments and was, in particular, realised in the 145 studies of A. N. Leontyev,^^35^^ A. R. Luriya,^^36^^ P. Ya. Galperin,^^37^^ A. V. Zaporozhets,^^38^^ V. V. Davydov,^^39^^ V. P. Zinchenko, ^^40^^ and others: the idea that internal psychical processes are a result of “interiorisation”, that is, "growing in" or transposition onto the inner plane of those actions of the subject which are originally performed externally and directed at external objects. Implemented in external forms, activity assumes cooperation with other individuals and utilisation of socio-historically shaped instruments and modes embodied in a system of mediator objects. In the process of interiorisation external actions are subjected to a specific transformation—they are generalised, verbalised, reduced, and at the same time become capable of further development going beyond the possibilities of external activity.^^41^^ "In other words, the higher specifically human psychological processes can only emerge in the interaction between men,” writes A. N. Leontyev "that is, they can only be intrapsychplogical, and only later are they performed by the individual independently, some of them losing their initial external form, becoming interpsychological processes... Consciousness is not given initially and neither is-it generated by nature: consciousness is generated by society, it is produced.”^^42^^

p That means that external activity in the form of operating with certain objects, signs, schemes, etc., is not just one of the means of objectifying the “true” activity of thinking performed in one’s brain but its real basis and the starting point of formation.

p Therefore, all ideas appear in some objectified form, although the latter need not be verbal: an idea may appear in the shape of conception about activity involving some object, or even simply as a visual image of some situation; in the latter case the activity itself is given to the subject in- hidden form and is included in the conception. The translation of a verbally unformed idea (that is, unformed even in terms of inner speech) is not simply the activity of expressing some ready-made content in a different material but development of the content itself. In general, any form of reification or objectification of some cognitive content signifies a certain change in the latter.

p That means that the process of perception is not purely subjective, being mediated by mastering a socially formed world of objects which may be viewed as reified perceptions, just as scientific texts (although not only scientific texts, of course) are reifications of thinking. Man looks at the world through the eyes of society.

p The subjective world of consciousness presents itself to 146 the individual in the first place as a stream of visual images and notions replacing one another. Let us note, however, that any visual image (including the image of memory) not only expresses a certain experience but always refers to some real object (an ensemble of objects, a process, an objective situation, etc.). And that presupposes differentiating between the object and the image itself, interpreting the object of representation (in varying degrees of activity) in some network of objective relations: spatio-temporal coordinates, certain dependences on other objects, etc. The existence of visual images assumes, of course, the ability of the brain to retain traces of previous impressions. However, human notions are by no means identical with these traces, for they are always objectively interpreted in nature. That is why animals do not have either notions or subjective memory: the “revived” traces of previous impressions, first, are not included in this case in temporal connections existing only in the present (that is, there is neither the past nor the future for the animal, subjectively), and second, they do not characterise the objective world, connecting the information received from the outside directly with some situation reaction. Pierre Janet, a well-known French psychologist, underlines the distinction between simple repetition and human memory. In the repetition of something learnt earlier, the past is retained in the present (here belongs the entire area of skills). In a socially conditioned act of memory (in Janet’s terminology, in the act of "true memory”) we have a narrative, an account of what happened in the past, that is, a fundamentally new action in the present, in which the past is expressed symbolically. Because of this, an aspect of personality is formed that differs from the realisation of skills—the individual’s self-consciousness.

p The same facts are played up and subjectively interpreted in modern existentialist psychiatry. J. Zutta writes that when someone, forgetting where he put some object, asks, "Where has it got to? ”, and thinks it over in inactivity, he does something that no other living being can do, for he mentally translates a possibility into reality. The essence of amnesias, according to existentialist psychiatry, is above all the impossibility of going beyond the experienced situation and of memorising in a human manner.^^43^^ The visual image as an elementary “quantum” of the subjective stream of consciousness is always objectively interpreted, and this interpretedness emerges in the formation of the processes of consciousness themselves, that is, in the course of interiorisation of external activity in the world of socially created objects embodying social- 147 historical experience. It may be imagined that under different socio-cultural conditions, that is, in different contexts of social practice, the referential meanings implemented in external objective activity and later in the subjective world of consciousness will vary somewhat, for their content is determined not only by the world of real objects but also by the degree of their assimilation in the historically developing social practice. That means that under these conditions the subjectively experienced worlds of consciousness may differ in some respects in experiencing time, in the perception of the nature of replacement of some states of consciousness by others and of their mutual relations, etc.

p The visual image has no cognitive content different from the content of the external object represented in it, although the existence of the image itself and some of its characteristics that do not pertain to its referential meaning (its vividness or dimness, the length of the act itself of image perception, etc.) are realised as belonging to the subjective world different from the world of external objects. Visual representation always points to a real object, being devoid of any content or meaning outside this indicative function. It is therefore impossible to separate in consciousness the content of visual image from the content of the object presented in it (although the image itself is realised as different from the object). When consciousness attempts to make the content of a given visual image its object, it discovers that it deals with the content of the real object itself presented in this image.

p The referential interpretation of the content of consciousness emerging in the process of the formation of the latter, that is, in the course of external activity with socially created objects permeates all of its components, including the conscious perception ’of the most elementary units of psychical life. In this connection let us consider the experience of pain. It is beyond question (and has been studied thoroughly) that the basis and function of pain sensations are physiological—they serve as a kind of signal informing the individual about the need for eliminating certain external actions constituting a threat to the organism. The specifically human feeling of pain implies the realisation of this feeling as differing from all the others, its inclusion in the context of other states of psychical life, localisation of pain sensations in the body of the given subject (we do not feel pain in general but pain in the given spot of the arm, toothache, headache, etc.), realisation of the fact that pain is always my pain and is not therefore inherent in objects different from my body, 148 and finally, a certain attitude to pain itself. In other words, although the elementary sensation of pain in itself, as distinct from perception or visual representation, expresses experience rather than knowledge, it is also included in certain meaningful structures, including cognitive ones, relating, on the one hand, to external objects, and on the other, to the subjective world. These meaningful structures are assimilated by the individual only along with the formation of his consciousness, and it therefore should be assumed that the feeling of pain itself at the early stages of development differs from what we have just described. A newborn baby cannot in principle localise the feeling of pain, for its body does not yet exist for it as an object. It therefore merges, as it were, with its pain. Inasmuch as the domain of external objects is not consciously given it either, it may be said that when painfully stimulated, the baby perceives the whole world as filled with the sensation of pain. Supposedly, even this elementary sensation (as a .consciously realised one) will vary with cultural-historical conditions, in any case as far as attitude to pain, the modes of external expression of this sensation, etc., are concerned.

p This reference to the socially and culturally conditioned character of the processes and functions of consciousness does not of course mean that we negate the fact that the subjective world of each individual is unique and original, that I can know something about the states of my consciousness that is not known to anyone else. (At the same time someone else may know some things about myself, about my personality and even about my psychical life of which I am not aware myself.) The way I perceive, experience things, think, etc., characterises myself and no one but myself. The whole point is that the process of interiorisation in which the subjective world is formed occurs each time under a unique set of conditions: the given human organism is unlike any others even at the starting point of the development of the psyche; the individual development of consciousness itself occurs each time under specific conditions and in unique relations with other men; each person occupies a unique position not only in the system of interpersonal socio-cultural connections but even in the network of spatio-temporal relations. When I perceive a given object, I do it from a certain angle which at this moment is inaccessible to anyone else—simply because it is I who occupy this position; moreover, the act itself of my perception includes my individual experiences which compels me to single out some aspects of the object over others. 149 (A great number of psychological studies deal with the influence of personality characteristics on the process of perception.)

p And yet I realise at this moment that I perceive the same objective thing which is perceived (from positions differing from mine and in somewhat different shadings) by other individuals as well. In other words, the fundamental jneaningfxil connections of consciousness, and in particularvthe system of referential meanings, have general validity, however varied their individual content. Thus socio-cultural mediation takes place both in the formation of unique individual features of the given subject and in the course of assimilation of universal semantic structures underlying cognitive activity as well as other specifically human kinds of activity. The difference is that in the former case universal norms and standards are transformed in the realisation of activity under concrete unique conditions, while in the latter it is a matter of the individual assimilating of the norms themselves.

p Thus Marxist philosophy emphasises the proposition (now underlying concrete psychological studies) that the fundamental characteristics of cognitive activity and the properties of knowledge cannot be understood correctly if one proceeds from analysis of consciousness as such; that was precisely what philosophical transcendentalism tried to achieve. Consciousness itself is by no means something ready-made and given a priori: it is formed and develops in the process of interiorisation of external practical activity mediated by objects created by man and for man and embodying mankind’s socio-historical experiences. Marx wrote that the objective being itself of human activity appears before us as "the perceptibly existing human psychology ".^^

p It should be said that the classical German philosophy, and in the first place the systems of Fichte and Hegel, placed considerable emphasis on the analysis of the significance of the activity of external objectification or reification for the development of consciousness, self- consciousness, and cognition. As we remember, the necessary condition of the formation of the ego, of the subject, is, according to Fichte, alienation and objectification by the Absolute Subject of its own activity in the form of nonego. Hegel goes even farther, indicating the role of social, inter-individual activity in the process of self-comprehension of the Absolute Spirit, that is, in the process of its formation as the Absolute Subject—activity that is directed not only at reification of certain representations pertaining to the sphere of spiritual culture but also at transformation 150 of the external natural environment, that is, labour activity. However, not only for Fichte but even for Hegel it is ultimately a matter of objectification, of external objective expression of the content which is potentially inherent in the depths of the Absolute interpreted as a primordially spiritual entity (the Absolute Ego in Fichte, the Absolute Spirit in Hegel). For this reason what is meant here is not, strictly speaking, generation of subjectivity, of the world of consciousness, but merely its spontaneous self- development from the depth of the Absolute, its unfolding, which is merely mediated by the activity of external objectification. In other words, first there is movement from within, and only then comes the reverse movement- the penetration of consciousness into itself, and formation of adequate self-consciousness mediated by external reification. The direction of reasoning in Marxist philosophy is diametrically opposed to that: first there is movement from without or interiorisation, "growing in”, assimilation by the individual subject of various socially developed modes of activity and in this connection the formation of individual consciousness and self-consciousness. At the same time this assimilation is achieved in the individual subject’s object-directed activity in such a way that the movement from without expresses the transition of the subject’s activity from the external plane to the internal one, rather than elementary causal action of an external object on the subject. Then, the subject’s activity is directed originally not so much at the external objectification of the content that is already inherent in the "inner plane" as at the formation of the latter. Only on this basis is later the second process implemented (which, once it emerges, begins to interact with the first) the exteriorisation, external objectification, reification of the inner content of consciousness, which is a necessary component of any creativity.

p The Marxist conception of nature, of the ways of formation and modes of functioning of consciousness is in principle opposed also to modern psychological behaviourism, which, on the one hand, practically rejects the possibility of scientific study of consciousness, and, on the other, interprets the subject’s external actions ( behaviour) as elementary organic reactions rather than as socio-culturally mediated.

p Another important conclusion follows from this. Three kinds of activity are linked together at the outset of the formation of consciousness: external practical activity, the process of cognition, and communication. In performing one and the same objective action, the subject 151 simultaneously carries out a number of functions: he changes the form of the external object, performs the act of cognitive orientation, and assimilates the socially formed modes of practical and cognitive activity implemented in the object which he uses as an instrument of mediation. The act of communicating a message from one subject to another must not be understood simply as assimilation by the subject of social experiences reified in the given instrument or the act of “de-reification” of the “hidden” modes of activity performed by the subject, a process of decoding the messages sent by the previous generations. In actual fact the assimilation itself of adequate modes of activity involving a socially functioning object is only possible on condition that the subject, in this case the child, is included in the living communicative connection with other persons existing at present, with adults teaching him the human modes of using man-made objects and thereby developing his cultural attitudes and norms, including the standards of cognitive activity. Before the child learns to act on his own, he acts in direct cooperation with an adult (the so-called “joint-but-separate” activity). Thus the relation to the object of activity is here explicitly and visually mediated by the relation to another person.

p This process is manifested especially clearly when access to sensory information is sharply limited, as happens, e. g., in the psychical development of blind deaf-and-mute children. Where distant receptors are at work, communication between adult and child involves a considerable amount of the child’s imitative actions which may outwardly appear as manifestations of the child’s spontaneous activity rather than the product and form of communication. In the case of blind deaf-and-mutes, it becomes obvious that psychical processes and functions are modelled or created in the process of joint-but-separate activity of child and adults, an activity in which the social experience of using man-made objects is transmitted to the child. The development of this activity is characterised by a gradual, decrease in the share of the adult’s participation and correspondingly by a growing share of participation and activity of the child, so that ultimately the processes of assimilation of socially developed modes of activity and creative transformation of the objective world begin to function jointly.^^45^^

p Later, at the stage when consciousness has been formed, the direct links between practical activity, cognition, and communication are broken. We have already mentioned that it is not every cognition that is directly connected with discovery of the modes of practical transformation 152 of the object, although a profound inner connection between cognition and practical activity is retained at all levels of knowledge. It is also obvious that a well- developed process of cognition does not at all coincide with the process of communication: the latter is singled out as a separate sphere of activity governed by special laws. Indeed, when I think in my mind, many obvious and customary mental moves are omitted, “swallowed”, as it were, some premises are not formulated explicitly, some search procedures are applied in hidden form, etc. Communication of the results of my cognitive activity implies explicit formulation of many implicit elements (although not all of them, for the possibility of communication presupposes a number of common implicit premises in different individuals), as well as taking into account the interlocutor’s standpoint, the level of his knowledge in the given area, etc.

p At the same time it follows from the above that any cognitive activity, whatever the form of its direct subjective givenness, is socially mediated in character as regards the fundamental mechanisms of its implementation; consequently, it always contains the potential for communication, i. e., it is performed not only for oneself but also for any other person included in the given system of socially cultural norms. As we have already noted, that is also true of the cognitive ideas which emerge in consciousness without verbal mediation, for side by side with verbal communication there also exist the more elementary levels of human communication, including such a basic kind of communication as object-oriented activity itself. On the other hand, it is in the process of communication that the inner norms governing the cognitive process appear in the most explicit and developed form. Marx wrote: "But also when I am active scientifically, etc.— an activity which I can seldom perform in direct community with others—then my activity is social, because I perform it as a man. Not only is the material of my activity given to me as a social product (as is even the language in which the thinker is active): my own existence is social activity, and therefore that which I make of myself, I make of myself for society and with the consciousness of myself as a social being. "4 6

p For this reason, as far as epistemological inquiry is concerned, that is, the discovery of universal referential meanings, norms, and standards used for production of knowledge, the most suitable material for analysis proves to be the processes, means, and products of communicative activity, in which cognition is expressed in reified, 153 objectified form, rather than the phenomena of consciousness taken by themselves, in which these referential meanings and standards appear transformed, in hidden form, as it were, and are not always sufficiently apparent for the subject himself. This idea should be explained in some detail. Let us note first of all that in epistemological analysis the process of communication is not studied in all its complexity and multidimensionality: this task can only be solved through coordination of the efforts of a number of sciences, including information theory, semiotics, psychology, psycholinguistics, social psychology, sociology, etc. In communicative activity, epistemology singles out only that aspect which has a direct bearing on it: reified, objectified, universal norms and standards of production and evaluation of knowledge. Strictly speaking, epistemology does not therefore study the living process of communication itself but some universal conditions of its possibility relative to transmission of knowledge. Inasmuch as these conditions are implemented in the process of transmission itself, the latter provides empirical data for epistemological analysis (that assumes, rather than excludes, interaction between epistemology and the specialised sciences studying both communicative processes and the mechanisms of cognition).

p Let us further note that in the light of Marxist philosophy communication of knowledge presupposes objectification of knowledge not only in the form of texts or utterances but also of man-made objects carrying socio-cultural meaning. Epistemology therefore must analyse objectoriented activity in the unity of its practical- transformative, cognitive and communicative functions, as the basis of the entire cognitive process. At the same time epistemology must consider, without fail, the givenness of referential meanings in consciousness, if only because object-related activity corresponding to some of the deeplying cognitive standards (in particular, perceptive objecthypotheses) has so far been quite inadequately studied in science, and we have no modes of establishing the content of these meanings other than through the data of consciousness.

p Thus Marxist-Leninist epistemology radically re- orientates the traditional epistemological range of problems, fundamentally changing the mode itself of specifying and investigating them. The starting point of analysis of cognition is understood as investigation of functioning and development of systems of collective, inter- subjective activity, and not as the study of the relation of an individual subject (whether organism or consciousness) to 154 the opposing object. The inter-subjective activity is based on practical transformation of external objects. Cognitive reflection and communication are realised in close unity with transformation of objects. Transformative and cognitive activity assumes the creation of a whole world of socially functioning “artificial” mediator objects in which the social experience of transformative and cognitive activity is objectified. The individual subject himself as the subject of consciousness and cognition emerges only insofar as he functions as the agent of that activity, i. e. is included in a definite objective system of relations to other subjects, mastering the social modes of activity objectified in the mediator objects. In this sense, both the specifically human cognition, and its subject may be said to be “artificial” products. That does not mean that cognition deals with man’s own creations only and does not reflect the characteristics of real objects existing independently of consciousness, or that the subject is a chimera of the imagination. What is meant here is the fact, fundamental from the positions of Marxist-Leninist epistemology, that the cognitive process, the production of knowledge assumes a breaking away from the organism’s natural relation to the environment and the use of standards that have socio-cultural (and in this sense “artificial”) character.

In the following chapters we shall consider those elements of the cognitive relation the study of which is of special interest in connection with the recent results of the science of science and the methodological analysis of science.