This article was downloaded by: [University of Birmingham]On: 06 October 2014, At: 16:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Creativity Research JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Vygotskian theory: An emerging paradigm withimplications for a synergistic psychologyLarry W. Smolucha a b & Francine C. Smolucha ca School of the Art Institute of Chicagob 1406 Westminster Ct, Darien, IL, 60559–5054c Moraine Valley Community CollegePublished online: 02 Nov 2009.

To cite this article: Larry W. Smolucha & Francine C. Smolucha (1992) Vygotskian theory: An emerging paradigm withimplications for a synergistic psychology, Creativity Research Journal, 5:1, 87-97, DOI: 10.1080/10400419209534425

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419209534425

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Creativity Research JournalVolume 5 (1) 87-97 (1992)

Vygotskian Theory: An Emerging Paradigm

with Implications for a Synergistic Psychology

Larry W. SmoluchaSchool of the Art Institute of Chicago

Francine C. SmoluchaMoraine Valley Community College

ABSTRACT: American psychologists oftenassume that scientific paradigms are autono-mous. This leads to a "theoretical hegemo-ny" in which the major paradigms are treat-ed as independent, or even rival ideologicalentities. This article presents an alternativeapproach in which certain aspects of each ofthe major paradigms are recombined into acomprehensive synergistic psychology. Theimportance of internalized social interactionas a self-regulatory mechanism is used asthe primary organizing principle for synthe-sizing Vygotskian theory with other majorparadigms including psychoanalysis, behav-iorism, humanistic psychology, informationprocessing, bio-psychology, and Piagetiantheories. The significance of this synergisticapproach is demonstrated in examples drawnfrom creativity research.

tic, information processing, bio-psychol-ogical, and Piagetian theories. As Vy-gotskian theory becomes more influential inAmerica, it presents us with a unique oppor-tunity to examine more closely how para-digmatic1 changes take place in Americanpsychology. Although this article examinesthese changes from the perspective of cre-ativity research, the observations presentedhere are relevant to all areas of psychology.

Because Vygotsky is generally regardedas the father of Soviet psychology, and hiswritings have been studied in Europe fordecades, the observations made in this paperare particularly relevant for American re-searchers. It should also be noted, however,that Vygotsky's writings specifically on cre-ativity have been overlooked by Soviet and

Vygotskian theory is currently being recog-nized by American psychologists as a majorpsychological paradigm comparable hi stat-ure to psychoanalytic, behavioral, humanis-

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to LarrySmolucha, 1406 Westminster Ct, Darien, IL 60559-5054.

1The term paradigm is used here to denote the conceptual gestalts thatunderlie scientific theories. This is the way that the term has come to beused by most scientists since the publication of Kuhn's (1962/1970) book.The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

Creativity Research Journal 87

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:11

06

Oct

ober

201

4

L. Smolucha and F. Smolucha

European psychologists. To our knowledge,there has been no discussion of Vygotsky'stheory of creativity, or research on it, priorto Francine Smolucha's translations2 of Vy-gotsky's three papers on creativity.3 In apaper written in 1985, Smolucha andSmolucha synthesized Vygotsky's theory ofcreativity with their own theoretical con-cepts, as well as with concepts derived frompsychoanalytic and Piagetian theory.

Historically, psychologists have madecertain assumptions about the autonomousnature of scientific paradigms. These needto be made explicit, and in many instances,entirely revised. This set of implicit as-sumptions has resulted in a theoretical hege-mony in which major paradigms are treatedas independent, political entities, conceptual-ly independent of one another. Underlyingthis theoretical hegemony are five principalassumptions manifested in (a) a tendencytoward theoretical reductionism, (b) a ten-dency to regard theories as merely sets oflogical propositions, (c) a political andideological bias, (d) the rival view that theo-ries are the product of a single individual,and (e) a lack of recognition that all theorieshave discursive as well as ontological char-acteristics. This article considers each ofthese assumptions and offers alternatives tothem.

2In 1984, F. Smolucha translated Vygotsky's (1932/1960b) paper'Imagination and its Development in Childhood." Using that translation,Smolucha and Smolucha (1986a) later wrote "A Fifth Piagetian Stage: TheCollaboration Between Imagination and Logical Thought in ArtisticCreativity" (published in the Netherlands). From 1985-1986, F. Smoluchatranslated Vygotsky's other two papers on creativity, Imagination andCreativity in Childhood' (1930/1990) and 'Imagination and Creativity inthe Adolescent' (1931/1984). In August 1986, Smolucha and Smoluchapresented a paper titled "L. S. Vygotsky's Theory of Creative Imagination'at the meeting of the American Psychological Association (published inGermany, 1986b).3In the early 1980's, John-Steiner (1985) applied Vygotskian concepts inher study of creativity, but she did not specifically discuss Vygotsky'swritings on creativity.

Five Assumptions CharacterizingTheoretical Hegemony

A Tendency Toward TheoreticalReductionism

The prevailing attitude has been that re-searchers can have an allegiance to only onetheory, because only one theory can be right.For example, one is either a behavioralpsychologist or a humanistic psychologist,either a Piagetian or a Freudian. The termeclectic has come to designate, often withdisparagingly pragmatic overtones, thosepsychologists who lack a coherent theoreticalorientation and use whatever concept ortechnique is found to work in a given situa-tion.

An alternative to reductionism is dialectalpsychology, hi which two opposing theoreti-cal positions are synthesized into a thirdunifying concept. Although dialectical psy-chology is not a major approach in Ameri-can psychology, it is an important feature ofSoviet psychology, and of Vygotskian theoryin particular. One of the effects of Vy-gotskian theory on American psychologymay be a renewed interest in dialectal psy-chology, which has previously enjoyed onlyperipheral interest, mainly in the writings ofKlaus Riegel (1976).

In regard to creativity research, a dialec-tical approach offers a way of reconcilingopposing theoretical positions when both aresupported by empirical research. For exam-ple, from a reductionist perspective, creativeimagination is either an unconscious or aconscious thought process. The dialecticalalternative is to formulate a conceptualframework in which creative imagination canbe both an unconscious and conscious

88 Creativity Research Journal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:11

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Vygotskian Theory

thought process depending upon what levelof cognition is being discussed. Thus, asynthesis is possible between psychoanalytictheories of creativity emphasizing uncon-scious imaginative processes and Vygotsky'stheory of creativity which emphasizes con-sciously directed imaginative processes (seeSmolucha, 1988; Smolucha & Smolucha1988).

A Tendency to Regard Theories as MerelySets of Logical Propositions

Psychological theories are often regarded asif they were derived, in the manner of logi-cal propositions, exclusively from an individ-ual author's research observations. Thisbelief is clearly a residue of 19th centurylogical positivism. As the influence oflogical positivism has declined, however, aconstructivist philosophy of science has em-erged to take its place (see Kuhn, 1962/1970,1977; Toulmin, 1972). Psychologists nowtend to regard psychological theories associal constructs rather than as absolutetruths. Furthermore, an analysis of thehistorical development of the major theoriesprovides many examples of how conceptsare borrowed from other theories and incor-porated into new theoretical systems, ratherthan originating afresh from a singleresearcher's observations. A few exampleswill serve to illustrate this point

Piaget acknowledged that his concept ofegocentric thought was derived from thepsychoanalytic concept of autistic thinkingdeveloped by Eugene Bleuler (Piaget, 1923/1973, pp. 63-65) which, in turn, was derivedfrom Freud's concept of primary processthought. Vygotsky acknowledged the simi-larity between his own explanation of how

the internalized other functions in self-regulation and Freud's (Vygotsky, 1925/1979, p. 30) model of the ego and the id.Also, in the paper "Imagination and Creativi-ty in Childhood," Vygotsky stated explicitlythat he had adopted Ribot's model of howthe relationship between imagination andconceptual thought changes with age, andthat he was incorporating this model into hisown theory (Smolucha, 1992b, pp. 11, 16-18). Vygotsky also modified Piaget's con-cept of egocentric speech and incorporated itin his own theory of inner speech (Vygotsky,1986, pp. 29-36).

Political and Ideological Bias

Major theoretical paradigms often come tobe regarded as rival political idealogies. Thezealousness with which loyal adherents arguetheir theoretical positions in part reflects thefact that many psychological theories actual-ly represent the cultural idealogies espousedby various national governments. For exam-ple, John Watson appropriated the concept ofPavlovian conditioning and synthesized itwith the concept of the tabula rasa fromJohn Locke's political theories. Vygotsky,on the other hand, synthesized one ofPavlov's concepts (the second signal system)with Marx's dialectical method and his ideaof the human being as tool user. Aside fromthe issue of nationalism, these paradigmsgenerate political allegiances within thedomain of psychology. A great deal of selfesteem, power, and wealth is associated withbeing recognized as an expert on a particulartheory.

The development of authority in theoreti-cal movements follows a recognizable pat-tern. The theoretical movement is usually

Creativity Research Journal 89

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:11

06

Oct

ober

201

4

L. Smolucha and F. Smolucha

known both by its formal name, but also bythe name of its founder or leading advocate.Hence, psychoanalytic theory is often re-ferred to as Freudian theory, Vygotsky'scultural-historical theory4 is called Vy-gotsldan theory, behaviorism is often re-ferred to as Skinnerian theory, and Piaget'sgenetic epistemology is called Piagetiantheory. This identification of a theory withits founder is reminiscent of the identifica-tion of religious orders with their founders(for example, the Dominicans, the Francis-cans, the Bendictines, and so on).

Although direct, personal contact with atheory's author augments the reading of hisor her works, it does not necessarily engen-der a critical appraisal of the theory. Somestudents are overwhelmed by the personalcharisma of innovative thinkers and becomemerely biographers. In some instances, thefounder of a theoretical movement may nottolerate dissension or encourage creativethinking in his students. Among the firstgeneration of students, some establish them-selves as orthodox interpreters, and others—those who advocate divergent interpreta-tions—establish alternative movements.

In the second generation of students, thetheoretical movement usually becomes moreconservative, and the socialization of stu-dents becomes more formalized. A socialestablishment emerges to control access totexts, educational programs, licensing, andjournals. Social prestige and professionalconnections are often more influential inestablishing one's authority to interpret thefounder's writings than one's knowledge ofthe texts themselves.

4Its traditional name in the U.S.S.R.

The history of psychoanalysis presentsnumerous examples of how this script hasplayed itself out (see Alexander & Selesnick,1966). This "pattern of institutionalizationof a theory" has no doubt also occurredelsewhere. Because of Vygotsky's earlydeath and the repression of his theory byStalin for 20 years, an orthodox Vygotskianmovement was never concretized in theUSSR. There is no specific informationabout the extent to which Vygotsky tolerateddissension or encouraged creative thinkingby his own students. When Stalin declaredVygotsky a nonperson hi 1936, Vygotsky'sstudents were forced to work in isolationfrom the larger psychological communityuntil 1956, when Vygotsky's writings beganto be published again hi Russian. Vygot-sky's students then reemerged to institution-alize their own interpretations of Vygotskiantheory, hi the form of Leontiev's (1975/1978) activity theory, Luria's (1973) neuro-psychology, and El'konin's (1978) theory ofplay.

One aspect of Vygotsky's theory thatapparently did not survive the Stalin era wasVygotsky's theory of creativity, probablybecause none of his students continuedresearch hi that area. Thus, Western psy-chologists who studied with the first orsecond generation of Vygotsky's studentswould not have been exposed to this aspectof his theory. In fact, one of Vygotsky'sthree papers on creativity, "Imagination andCreativity in Childhood," was not evenincluded in the six volume Collected Worksof Vygotsky published in Russian from 1982to 1984. Ironically, Vygotsky's theory ofcreativity was finally reconstructed by anAmerican psychologist working independent-ly of the Soviet psychological establishment(see Smolucha, 1992b).

90 Creativity Research Journal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:11

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Vygotskian Theory

The Assumption that Theories are theProduct of a Single Individual (the Cult ofOriginality)

American cultural idealogy is heavily influ-enced by Renaissance notions of the individ-uality of man, and by Rousseau's belief inthe nobility of man in his natural condition.This has led many psychologists to underes-timate the extent to which the founders ofthe major theoretical paradigms introjectedconcepts from other theories into their own,and the extent to which their work wastherefore a collaborative effort. The resul-tant "cult of originality" has perpetuated theidea that major theoretical paradigms are theproducts of a single individual's creativityrather than cumulative, cultural products. Itshould be acknowledged that a new theoreti-cal synthesis often owes as much to itshistorical predecessors as it does to theindividual who performs the synthesis.

The Discursive and Ontological Characterof Scientific Inquiry

Since the publication of Thomas Kuhn's(1962/1970) The Structure of ScientificRevolutions, the dual nature of science—asboth a cultural and an ontological undertak-ing—has been widely recognized. The oldnotion of scientists as "investigators of theabsolute" has given way to a more accuraterepresentation of science as an ideologicallyinfluenced activity, as value-laden andculture-bound as any humanistic enterprise.From this vantage point, scientific researchmay be regarded as akin to a specializedliterary genre, possessing its own charac-teristic stylistic features, rules, and para-digms. Science helps to shape the larger

cultural field, even while it is simultaneouslyshaped by that same cultural field. Thisrecognition does not mean, however, thatresearch methods are entirely discursive orthat scientific inquiry is nothing more thansolipsistic wool gathering. Such a positionwould be as limited in intellectual scope asits opposite—the idea that the universe is anentirely concrete and positivist place. In-stead, we can search for a middle groundthat offers the more strategic position ofrecognizing the discursive character of ourimplicit assumptions and, at the same time,allows us to evaluate the usefulness of theseassumptions in predicting and controllingphenomena.

The recognition of the discursive natureof scientific method has implications forfuture research on creativity as well as otherareas of research. For example, when doinga review of the research literature that as-sesses research conducted by opposingtheories, one has to make explicit one's owntheoretical biases and discourse style. Fail-ure to do this can result in the misrepresen-tation of research, and an unwarranted rejec-tion of valuable data from other researchparadigms. An example of this is the waythat some Western psychologists had misrep-resented research on the social origins ofpretend play and thus prematurely closed offany further research on the topic (seeSmolucha, 1992a).

Research Implications forVygotsky's Theory of Creativity

From the perspective of theoretical hegemo-ny, Vygotskian theory, like any other psy-

Creativity Research Journal 91

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:11

06

Oct

ober

201

4

L. Smolucha and F. Smolucha

chological theory, is an autonomous theoreti-cal system that poses an alternative to othertheories of creativity. Reductionist thinkingdemands that if Vygotsky's theory is correct,then the other theories must necessarily bewrong. We can expect to see further polar-ization of the different theoretical camps asthe existing major theoretical positions—behavioral, psychoanalytic, Piagetian, hu-manistic, bio-psychological, and informationprocessing—brace themselves for confronta-tion with yet another unwelcome rival.Also, if the typical scenario is followed, wewill soon see the establishment of an "ortho-dox" American school of Vygotskian studieswhich will seek to control access to informa-tion and training.

An alternative approach is to examine thespecific aspects of each of these theories inthe light of empirical research, and synthe-size these into a comprehensive and holisticunderstanding of human behavior. Wherethere are genuine differences of opinionbetween theories, these differences can benoted and used as an impetus to futureresearch. Theoretical differences of opinioncan be resolved by examining existing em-pirical research, and by conducting furtherstudies when necessary to resolve the ambi-guities.

The discursive nature of such an enter-prise must also be recognized. As Kuhn(1962/1970) showed, the influence of aparticular research paradigm not only guidesresearch, but also determines which ques-tions can be legitimately asked. What mayappear valid hi one research paradigm mayappear trivial, or even nonexistent, in anoth-er. Explicit clarification of certain theoreti-cal concepts—such as what social reallymeant to Vygotsky or Piaget—is not alwayspossible. Major writers occasionally contra-

dict themselves in their own writings, or areambiguous about such matters. To resolvedisputes of this type, an interpretation mustbe put forth and empirically tested.

It may also be possible to resolve suchissues by use of the dialectic, that is, byintroducing a third unifying concept thatallows for the possibility that both opposingopinions may be partially correct One ex-ample of a successful dialectic is the conceptof reaction range in genetics, which allowsfor simultaneous and varied affects of hered-ity and the environment in determining thedegree to which a particular genetic trait willbe manifested. For example, a geneticblond's hair color may range from tawnybrown to pale yellow, depending on theenvironment factors that effect the expres-sion of that inherited trait. Scarr andMcCartney (1983) discussed how the con-cept of reaction range can be used in psy-chology to explain environmental-geneticinteractions affecting intelligence.

Our preference for a nonreductionisticapproach has led us to attempt a theoreticalsynthesis of as many of the paradigms aspossible, resulting in a synergistic psycholo-gy. The term "synergistic" was chosen todescribe this approach because it denotes themutually enhancing influence of differentelements acting upon each other. In ourearlier writings we began working on asynthesis of Freudian, Piagetian, andVygotskian theories (Smolucha & Smolucha,1985,1986a, 1986b). Given that both Piagetand Vygotsky incorporated psychoanalyticconcepts into their theories, it is not surpris-ing that theories are partly compatible. Atthe same time, important differences remainbetween these theories that should not beoverlooked. These differences can be re-solved through empirical research.

92 Creativity Research Journal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:11

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Vygotskian Theory

There is an organizing principle thatallows for synthesis of these and other theo-ries into a coherent general psychology, asynergistic psychology (Smolucha, 1988;Smolucha & Smolucha, 1988). This orga-nizing principle rests on the idea that inter-nalized social interactions serve to regulatecognitive and biological processes. BothFreud (1923/1960) and George Herbert Mead(1913/1964) used this principle as a majorcomponent of their theoretical systems priorto Vygotsky's writings in the 1920's. Morerecently, Bandura (1977) included this prin-ciple in his social learning theory.

Instead of being drawn into an unproduc-tive debate over which of the major theoriesis most valid (Freud vs. Piaget vs. Vygotsky,and so on), the synergistic approach com-bines major aspects of these theoreticalpositions into a comprehensive whole, just asthese major authors themselves synthesizedelements from other existing theories whenformulating their own theoretical positions.Although any synthesis can not be entirelyculture-free or value-free, the combination ofdisparate theoretical positions into a holisticsystem provides a more comprehensiveunderstanding of human social, cognitive,emotional, and biological development thandoes any single theory taken alone.

In general psychology as well as creativi-ty research, there is much to be gained fromoperating within an organized system thatacknowledges the contributions of variousdifferent theories. For example, Vygotskyprovides the most coherent account of howspeech is internalized and used in self-reg-ulation; but although he acknowledged theimportance of emotional self-regulation(Vygotsky, 1932/1960a) and the role ofunconscious nonverbal processes (Vygotsky,1930/1982b), these aspects of Vygotsky's

theory were never fully developed. Psycho-analytic research, on the other hand, hascontributed much to our understanding ofhow interactions with parental figures areinternalized, and how they operate in theregulation of emotional, cognitive, andbehavioral processes. A synthesis of Freud'sand Vygotsky's theories yields a synergisticmodel of how speech interactions becomeinternalized and influence, whether positivelyor negatively, our ability to do creativethinking. Put briefly, internal dialogues withsignificant others (to use Mead's [1913/1964] term) form the patterns for the cogni-tive and the emotional processes involved increative thinking. According to both Freud(1914/1957, p. 118; 1933/1965, p. 62) andVygotsky (1930/1982a), such dialogues arealso involved in the creation of the basicintrapsychological systems.

One example of how the synthesis ofpsychoanalytic and Vygotskian theories canenrich our understanding of the creativeprocess was described by Smolucha andSmolucha (1989). Psychoanalytic theory ofcreativity research has traditionally regardedthe creative process as involving a full orpartial regression of the ego, either voluntari-ly or involuntarily, to a more primitive stateof consciousness. Freud (1915), however,described a situation in which a cooperationmight exist between unconscious impulsesand the controlling ego when the formerserve the interests of the latter. In thisinstance, the unconscious becomes ego-syn-tonic (Freud, 1915, p. 141). Unfortunately,Freud never developed this idea further.

According to Smolucha and Smolucha(1989), because the needs of the ego, id, andsuperego are in mutual concordance, there isin an ego-syntonic state a temporary relax-ation of the tensions among those aspects of

Creativity Research Journal 93

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:11

06

Oct

ober

201

4

L. Smolucha and F. Smolucha

the personality. In such an ego-syntonicstate, the adult personality can experience asense of relaxed fulfillment conducive to theexpression of the individual's creativity, butwithout necessitating a regression. Throughthe application of Vygotsky's theory,Smolucha and Smolucha (1989) identifiedthree internalized parental interactions thatinhibit or enhance the creative process,depending upon the degree to which theyprovide positive direction as well as emo-tional support.

This new interpretation points to one areain which traditional psychoanalytic theoryneeds to be reappraised, namely the conceptof imagination as an exclusively unconsciousprimary process. In our earlier research,prior to our study of Vygotsky's writings,we found evidence that imaginative thoughtprocesses, such as the use of visual analogiesto condense multiple meanings in a work ofart, could be consciously directed and taught(Smolucha & Smolucha, 1983). We pro-posed a revision of psychoanalytic theorythat views creativity as a maturation ofchildren's pretend play, and as a consciouslydirected thought process that functions incollaboration with—rather than in oppositionto—logical thought. We later discovered thatVygotsky (1932/1960b) had similarly pro-posed that creative imagination originates inchildren's pretend play and develops into aconsciously directed higher thought processthat can work together with conceptualthought. Vygotsky, however, did not discussthe use of visual analogies in creative think-ing in science and art.

Another opportunity for theoretical syn-thesis concerns the role of caregivers in thedevelopment of children's imaginations. Justas Freud overlooked the effect of socialinteractions on the development of imagina-

tion, Piaget overlooked the effect of socialinteractions on cognitive development duringinfancy and early childhood. This was notmerely a coincidence; Piaget's model ofearly thought was derived from Bleuler'sconcept of autistic thinking which, in turn,was derived from Freud's concept of imagi-nation as unconscious primary processthought (Piaget, 1923/1973, p.63-65). Be-cause contemporary research has demonstrat-ed the importance of social interactions forearly cognitive development in general (seeStern, 1987), this aspect of Piaget's theory iscurrently being reappraised by contemporarydevelopmental psychologists.

Of particular interest for creativity re-searchers are the implications that thesetheories have for understanding the role ofplay interactions in the development ofcreative thinking. Both Freud (1908/1958)and Vygotsky (1930/1990) proposed thatcreative thinking derives from pretend play.Freud did not, however, discuss the possibil-ity of teaching children how to do creativepretend play. Vygotsky's theory suggeststhat higher thought processes, such as imagi-native thinking, develop through the internal-ization of speech interactions (see Smolucha,1992b). Vygotsky also claimed that creativethinking develops from play activities whichinvolve the use of object substitutions, suchas the use of a stick as a horse (see Smo-lucha, 1992b). Although Vygotsky neverspecified how these object substitutions aretaught, his colleague D. B. El'konin (1978)described Soviet research on how childrenlearn to use object substitutions duringpretend play. The combined writings ofVygotsky and El'konin produce the inter-esting hypothesis that children can be trainedto think creatively by showing them how touse object substitutions during play.

94 Creativity Research Journal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:11

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Vygotskian Theory

Contemporary play research has alreadyprovided evidence that during the secondyear of life social pretend play with acaregiver is common (see Bretherton, 1982),and that children not only learn how topretend play through interactions with theirmothers (Fiese, 1990), but learn how to doobject substitutions as well (Smolucha,1992a). Contemporary research has alsodemonstrated that children trained in pretendplay—but not in object substitutions perse—display increased creativity (see reviewsby Kogan [1983] and Rubin, Fein, &Vandenberg [1983]).

Once again, it is important to note thatone need not take the reductionist positionthat pretend play is either spontaneous orlearned. For example, the Piagetian positionthat object substitutions during play emergeas a solitary non-social activity (Piaget,1945/1962) can be subsumed under thedialectical approach used by Erkonin (1978,p. 158), for he acknowledged that althoughsome object substitutions may emerge spon-taneously, this is not the typical developmen-tal path.

Piagetian and psychoanalytic theoristshave mutually influenced one another'sresearch on object permanence and personpermanence. But there is the potential foran interesting convergence of Piagetian, Vy-gotskian, and psychoanalytic object relationstheories specifically concerning the use ofobject substitutions during play. Research inthis area has implications for play therapyand art therapy, as well as early childhoodeducation.

These examples illustrate a few of theareas where a synthesis among psychoanalyt-ic. Vygotskian, and Piagetian theories couldbe productive. However, there is no reasonto restrict a synthesis to these three theories.

For example, information processing theoryprovides a useful comparison and contrastbetween the organization of informationprocessing in humans and machines. Schankand Abelson's (1977) research on the pro-cessing of social scripts is particularly rele-vant to psychoanalytic and Vygotskiantheories of play. Humanistic psychology hashistorical overlap with psychoanalytic theory,particularly in the area of ego psychology,and shares an interest with Vygotskiantheory in the development of consciouslydirected behavior. Behavioral psychologyhas provided important knowledge of condi-tioned learning which enhances our knowl-edge of how social interactions and imitationaffect learning. And Luria's (1973) researchon the development of higher cortical func-tions provides a neurological basis for Vy-gotsky's theory of how development pro-ceeds from social interaction to self-regu-lation.

Further analysis of the constructs generat-ed by these theories in the light of empiricalresearch would undoubtedly reveal manymore ways in which these theories couldwork together to produce a more holisticimage of human development. There ismuch to be gained from a synthesis of dif-ferent theoretical perspectives, rather thanthe continued polarization and politicizing ofthese theories.

REFERENCES

Alexander, F. & Selesnick, S. (1966). The history ofpsychiatry. New York: Harper & Row.

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bretherton, L (1982). Symbolic play: The developmentof social understanding. New York: Academic.

Creativity Research Journal 95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:11

06

Oct

ober

201

4

L. Smolucha and F. Smolucha

El'konin, D. B. (1978). Psikhologia igri [The psy-chology of play]. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo Pedagogika.

Hese, B. (1990). Playful relationships: A contextualanalysis of mother-toddler interaction and symbolicplay. Child Development, 61, 1646-1656.

Freud, S. (1957). On narcissism: An introduction. InJ. Rickman (Ed.), A general selection from the worksof Sigmund Freud (pp. 104-123). Garden City, NY:Doubleday. (Original work written 1914)

Freud, S. (1958). The relation of the poet to daydream-ing. In On creativity and the unconscious, (pp.44-54). (I. F. Grant Duff, Trans.). New York:Harper Colophon Books. (Original work published1908)

Freud, S. (1960). The ego and the id (J. Strachey Ed.,J. Riviere, Trans.). New York: Norton. (Originalwork published 1923)

Freud, S. (1963). The unconscious. In P. Rieff (Ed.),General psychological theory. New York: Collier.(Original work published 1915)

Freud, S. (1965). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. (J. Strachey, Ed. and Trans.) New York:Norton. (Original work published 1933)

John-Steiner, V. (1985). Notebooks of the mind. NewYork: Harper & Row.

Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood andadolescence: Creativity, metaphor, and cognitivestyles. In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook ofchild psychology: Vol.3 (pp. 630-706). New York:Wiley.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revo-lutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.(Original work published 1962)

Kuhn, T. S. (1977). The essential tension. Chicago, IL:University of Chicago Press.

Leontiev, A. N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, person-ality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. (Originalwork published 1975)

Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain. An intro-duction to neuropsychology. New York: BasicBooks.

Mead, G. H. (1964). George Herbert Mead on socialpsychology: Selected papers. In A. Strauss (Ed.),(pp. 199-246). Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress. (Original work published 1913)

Piaget, J. (1962). Play, dreams, and imitation inchildhood. New York: W.W. Norton (Original workpublbhed 1945)

Piaget, J. (1973). The language and thought of thechild New York: World. (Original work published1923)

RiegeL K. F. (1976). Toward a dialectical theory ofdevelopment. Human Development, 19, 50-64.

Rubin, K., Fein, G., & Vandenberg, B. (1983). Play.In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology: Vol. 4 Socialization, personality, andsocial development (pp. 693-774). New York: Wiley.

Scarr, S. & McCartney, K. (1983). How people maketheir own environments: A theory of genotype-environment effects. Child Development, 54,424-435.

Schank, R. C. & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, plans,goals, and understanding. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Smolucha, F. (1988). Synergistic psychology: Towarda synthesis of psychoanalytic and Vygotskian theories.(ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 300710)

Smolucha, F. (1992a). A reconstruction of Vygotsky'stheory of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 5,49-67.

Smolucha, F. (1992b). The relevance of Vygotsky'stheory of creative imagination for contemporaryresearch on play. Creativity Research Journal, 5,69-76.

Smolucha, L., & Smolucha, F. (1983, September). Thecreative process in art. Paper presented at theInternational Conference on Psychology and the Arts,Cardiff, Wales. (ERIC Document ReproductionService No. ED 260 008)

Smolucha, L., & Smolucha, F. (1985). A fifth Piagetianstage: The collaboration of analogical and logicalthought in creativity. Visual Arts Research, 11,90-99.

Smolucha, L., & Smolucha, F. (1986a). A fifthPiagetian stage: The collaboration of imagination andlogical thought in artistic creativity. Poetics: Interna-tional Review for the Theory of Literature, 15,475-491.

Smolucha, L., & Smolucha, F. (1986b). L. S.Vygotsky's theory of creative imagination. SiegenerPeriodicum Internationalen Empirischen litera-turwissenschaft, 5, 299-308.

Smolucha, L., & Smolucha, F. (1988, October). Syner-gistic psychology applied to artistic creativity.Proceedings of the Xth International Colloquium onEmpirical Aesthetics, Barcelona, Sicily.

Smolucha, L. & Smolucha, F. (1989). Ego-syntonicaspects of adult play and creativity. (ERIC Docu-ment Reproduction Service No. ED 308 458)

Stern, D. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant.New York: Basic Books.

96 Creativity Research Journal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:11

06

Oct

ober

201

4

Vygotskian Theory

Toulmin, S. (1972). Human understanding. Princeton,NJ: Princeton University Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1960a) Emotsii i ikh razvitie vdestkom vozraste [Emotions and their development inchildhood]. In Razvitie vysshkih psikhicheskikhfunkstii [The development of higher mental functions](pp. 301-326). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo AkademiiPedagogicheskikh Nauk RSFSR. (Originally alecture presented in 1932)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1960b). Voabraszeniye i yeva razvitiev destkom vozraste [Imagination and its developmentin childhood]. In Razvitie vysshkih psikhicheskikhfunkstii [The development of higher mental func-tions] (pp. 327-362). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo AkademiiPedagogicheskikh Nauk RSFSR. (Originally alecture presented in 1932)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1979). Consciousness as a problem inthe psychology of behavior. Soviet Psychology,17(4), 3-35. Original work written 1925.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1982a). O psikhologicheskii systemax[On psychological systems]. In Collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1, pp. 132-148). Moscow:Izdatel'stvo Pedagogika. (Original work written1930)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1982b). Psildhika, soznaniye,bessoznatelnoye [The mind, consciousness, uncon-sciousness]. In Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky(Vol. 1, pp.132-148). Moscow: Izdatel'stvoPedagogika. (Original work published 1930)

Vygotsky, L. S. (1984). Voabraszeniye i tvorchestvo vpodrostka [Imagination and creativity in the adoles-cent]. In Collected works of L S. Vygotsky (Vol. 4,pp. 199-219). Moscow: IzdatePstvo Pedagogika.(Original work published 1931).

Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language. A.Kozulin (Ed. and Trans.), Cambridge, MA: MITPress.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1990). Imagination and creativity inchildhood. Soviet Psychology, 28(1), 84-96. (Origi-nal work written 1930)

Creativity Research Journal 97

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f B

irm

ingh

am]

at 1

6:11

06

Oct

ober

201

4