Perspectives in Cultural-Historical Research 1

Marilyn Fleer
Fernando González Rey
Nikolai Veresov Editors

Perezhivanie,
Emotions and
Subjectivity
Advancing Vygotsky’s Legacy
Contents

1 Perezhivanie, Emotions and Subjectivity: Setting the Stage . . . . . . . 1

Marilyn Fleer, Fernando González Rey and Nikolai Veresov

Part I Perezhivanie
2 On the Concept of Perezhivanie: A Quest for a Critical
Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Nelson Mok
3 The Concept of Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical
Theory: Content and Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Nikolai Veresov
4 Perezhivanie and Child Development: Theorising Research
in Early Childhood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Marie Hammer

Part II Emotions
5 Foregrounding Emotional Imagination in Everyday
Preschool Practices to Support Emotion Regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Marilyn Fleer
6 The Role of Imagination and Anticipation in Children’s
Emotional Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
Sue March and Marilyn Fleer
7 Everyday Family Routine Formation: A Source of the
Development of Emotion Regulation in Young Children . . . . . . . . . 129
Feiyan Chen

v
Chapter 3
The Concept of Perezhivanie
in Cultural-Historical Theory: Content
and Contexts

Nikolai Veresov

Abstract This chapter, advancing Vygotsky’s original definitions, makes an

important distinction between the two meanings of perezhivanie—perezhivanie as a
psychological phenomena/process which can be empirically observed and studied
(P1) and perezhivanie as a concept, a theoretical tool for analysis of the process of
development (P2). The chapter is an attempt to unlock the theoretical content of the
cultural-historical concept of perezhivanie in three interrelated dimensions, in
relation to: (1) the concepts of social environment and interaction of present and
ideal forms; (2) the general genetic law of cultural development; (3) the idea of
analysis of complex wholes by units. Advancing Vygotsky’s legacy, this chapter
introduces a concept of dramatic perezhivanie which allows to discover the
dialectics of the process of development of human mind as a sociocultural genesis
both in evolutional and revolutionary aspects as well as in a unity of macro and
microgenesis.

3.1 Identifying the Problem: P1 and P2

3.1.1 What Are the Meanings of Perezhivanie

in Vygotsky’s Texts?

Over the past two decades Vygotsky’s concept of perezhivanie has attracted
increasing attention by various researchers working within the cultural-historical
tradition (Rieber and Wollock 1997; Van der Veer and Valsiner 1994; Mahn and
John-Steiner 2002; Daniels 2008).
The term perezhivanie is quite difficult to explain and almost impossible to
translate. There is no English equivalent for this term; even the Spanish vivencia
(Quiñones and Fleer 2011) does not seem to be appropriate. After several unsuc-
cessful attempts to translate this term, some authors use the term perezhivanie

N. Veresov (&)
Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2017 47

M. Fleer et al. (eds.), Perezhivanie, Emotions and Subjectivity,
Perspectives in Cultural-Historical Research 1,
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-4534-9_3
48 N. Veresov

without any translation, simply as perezhivanie (see, among many others, Mahn
2003; Daniels 2008; Ferholt 2009, 2010; Fakhrutdinova 2010; Smagorinsky 2011).
Yet, what matters is not the word or the term, but its meaning and content. From
this standpoint, it makes sense to take a close look at meanings of perezhivanie in
Vygotsky’s various original texts. Thus, in 1931 he defines perezhivanie as follows:
Perezhivanie (пepeживaниe) is a common name for direct psychological experience.1 From
a subjective perspective, every psychological process is Perezhivanie. In every
Perezhivanie we distinguish: Firstly, an act, and secondly, the content of Perezhivanie. The
first is an activity related to the appearance of certain Perezhivanie; the second is the
content, the composition of what is experienced (Varshava and Vygotsky 1931, p. 128).

This definition might look strange and even irrelevant to the cultural-historical
theoretical framework. It looks like an umbrella-like “indefinite definition” (com-
mon name for direct psychological experience), whereas in the Historical Meaning
of Psychological Crisis written in 1926–1927 Vygotsky was very critical of defi-
nitions of this kind emphasising that “to try and explain everything means to
explain nothing” (Vygotsky 1997a, p. 246). Yet, there is no contradiction here: This
definition was from the Psychological Dictionary and reflected the traditional
classical meaning of the term perezhivanie as it existed in the psychology of those
times originated from Dilthey, Dewey and James. This meaning of perezhivanie
encompasses a huge variety of psychological phenomena; it is a phenomenological
definition (“from a subjective perspective, every psychological process is
Perezhivanie”). However, what is important is the same word might mean a process
(act, activity) or a content; in other words, perezhivanie is “How I am experiencing
something” and “What I am experiencing.” The word “activity” should not mislead
the reader as it has nothing to do with the concept of activity developed by Leont’ev
and his scientific school. The Russian word deyatel’nost’ (дeятeльнocть) was very
often used as a synonym of aktivnost (aктивнocть), for example, Pavlov’s term
“higher nervous activity” is vysshaya niervnaya deyatel’nost’ (выcшaя нepвнaя
дeятeльнocть).
This example shows that the first meaning of perezhivanie in Vygotsky’s texts
coincides with the traditional classical definition that existed in psychology (every
psychological process is perezhivanie); however, it distinguishes two meanings of
the term—(1) perezhivanie as a process and (2) perezhivanie as content. In The
Psychology of Art written in the beginning of the 1920s, we can also find lot of
places, where perezhivanie is used with these meanings (see, for example,
Vygotsky’s thinking about aesthetic experience (Vygotsky 1971, 1986).
My second example is from Lectures of Paedology of 1933/34 (Vygotsky 2001).
At present only one of these lectures (The Problem of Environment) is available in
English (Vygotsky 1994). Here we find a different approach:

1
Opyt (опыт) in Russian original text.
3 The Concept of Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical Theory … 49

…perezhivanie is a concept which allows us to study the role and influence of environment
on the psychological development of children in the analysis of the laws of development
(Vygotsky 1994, p. 343).

The meaning here is radically different from the first one. First, perezhivanie is a
concept, not a definition. Second, it is related to the process of development. Third,
it is related to the role and influence of environment on development. And fourth, it
has a strong reference to the psychological laws of development. Perezhivanie is a
concept which allows us to study the process of development which means that this
concept is an analytical tool, a theoretical lens to study the process of development.
Thus, in relation to the various meanings of perezhivanie in Vygotsky’s original
texts we have a complex picture. Meaning number 1 is perezhivanie as a common
name of all psychological processes and experiences, which can be labelled an
“ontological” or “phenomenological” meaning as it covers a huge variety of phe-
nomena and reflects their ontological status and nature. To make it simple I suggest
we call it P1. Accordingly, perezhivanie as a process could be labeled as P1.1 and
perezhivanie as content would be P1.2.
Meaning number 2 (P2) is not about general name of various psychological
phenomena, it is a concept related to the process of development, the role of
environment and laws of development. P2 is a theoretical tool, analytical lens to
study the process of development within a system of other concepts of
cultural-historical theory. In other words, the meaning of P2 is theoretical
(gnoseological or epistemological, depending on philosophical terminology we
follow).

3.1.2 Recent Studies on Perezhivanie:

A Very Brief Overview

A survey of existing literature shows a very complex picture. I do not need to

undertake in-depth analysis as it is presented in previous chapter of this Volume
(see Mok, this Volume). I will focus therefore on some aspects related to my topic.
All authors agree that perezhivanie is essential for understanding Vygotsky’s
thought. However, different authors highlight different aspects. Some researchers
emphasise the emotional character of perezhivanie (Mahn and John-Steiner 2002;
Daniels 2010), whereas others point to its complex and integrative nature as a unity
of emotional and cognitive components in perceiving and understanding the social
environment (Antoniadou 2011; Ferholt 2009; Rieber and Wollock 1997; Vasilyuk
1991). These explanations represent a wide combination of various characteristics.
Thus, taking these definitions, perezhivanie is discovered as a special type of
psychological process (or state of mind) which includes and relates to:
(1) emotional experience,
(2) interpretation,
50 N. Veresov

(3) imagination,
(4) creativity,
(5) perception,
(6) living through,
(7) meaning making,
(8) appropriation,
(9) internalisation,
(10) understanding,
(11) cognition.
This list might look strange; even more, it might look like a mechanical and
artificial combination of different approaches and understandings. I would agree,
but what this list makes clear is that most recent studies strictly correspond to the P1
meaning (every psychological process is perezhivanie).2 Thus, there is no problem
here. Where is the problem then? In my opinion, the problem is that we have little
research on perezhivanie with the P2 meaning. Thus, the research of Brennan is
focused on applying P2 as an analytical tool to study infant–adult interactions
(Brennan 2014), some researchers undertake interesting studies in developing the
content of P2 by theorising play (Fleer 2013), parent–child interactions (Chen
2015) and emotion regulation in child care settings (Fleer and Hammer 2013).
However, in general, perezhivanie as a concept and as a theoretical analytical tool
remains much less discovered compared to P1.
The best summary of this state of affairs belongs to Smagorinsky who claims:
… perezhivanie thus far remains more a tantalizing notion than a concept with clear
meaning and import to those who hope to draw on it. How this feature of human devel-
opment is constructed and employed in future work will affect how Vygotsky’s legacy in
the development of a comprehensive, unified cultural psychology is extended and realized
by those working in his considerable wake (Smagorinsky 2011, p. 339).

I would agree with this and would go even further––before using the concept as
an analytical tool in research design and data analysis, before developing such a
tool further we have to have a clear understanding what this tool is, what is the
original theoretical content of this concept within cultural-historical theory.

3.1.3 Aims of the Chapter

The way to understand this concept and to restore its theoretical content is to
identify clearly the place and role of this concept within cultural-historical theory
and to show the connections of this concept with other concepts, principles, and
laws of the theory.

2
Internet resources is another evidence to support this conclusion, see, for example an extended
discussion on the status of perezhivanie at http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/perezhivanie.
htm.
3 The Concept of Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical Theory … 51

In this chapter, I try to unlock the theoretical content of the concept of per-
ezhivanie in three interrelated dimensions. First, I try to elucidate perezhivanie as
one of the key concepts in Vygotsky’s theory. Second, I try to show its place within
Vygotsky’s theory by identifying its connections and interrelations with other
concepts and principles of cultural-historical theory. Third, I try to undertake an
analysis of perezhivanie as a theoretical tool for analysing the sociocultural genesis
of human mind. By doing this I will follow the P2 meaning, i.e. I will uncover its
theoretical content in relation to the process of development and the role of envi-
ronment and, finally, in relation to the general law of cultural development.
The way I suggest is very close to Chaiklin’s approach to another concept of
cultural-historical theory—the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD). Chaiklin
claims that to understand the role and place of the ZPD in Vygotsky’s theory,
… one must appreciate the theoretical perspective in which it appeared… That is, we need
to understand what Vygotsky meant by ‘development’ in general, if we are going to
understand what he meant by ‘zone of proximal development’ in particular. In this way, the
reader can develop a generative understanding of the theoretical approach, which will be
more valuable than a dictionary definition of the concept (Chaiklin 2003, p. 46).

This chapter is an attempt to initiate a generative understanding of the theoretical

content and context of perezhivanie. This goal is not easy to reach and it is hardly
possible to do this in one single paper; my task here is merely to show certain ways
to identify the psychological and developmental content of perezhivanie as a the-
oretical concept of cultural-historical theory. In doing this, I will mostly concentrate
on Vygotsky’s original texts to show the possible ways of developing a generative
understanding of the psychological content of this concept.
The process of the cultural development of the human mind is the subject matter
of cultural-historical theory. In cultural-historical theory, every concept and prin-
ciple reflects and explains certain aspects of this extremely complex process of the
cultural development of the human mind. Hence, the way to define the place and the
role of perezhivanie as a concept within this theory is to answer the question: How
is this concept related to the process of cultural development, and which aspects of
cultural development does it theoretically reflect?
Within this framework, the cultural-historical concept of “perezhivanie” is dis-
cussed in relation to three main aspects. It is related to:
(1) the concept of social environment3 as a source of development,
(2) the general genetic law of cultural development,
(3) the idea of a unit of analysis.

3
I use the notion of “social environment”, not “social-cultural environment” which looks more
appropriate in this context, because it corresponds to Vygotsky’s own terminology. According to
Vygotsky “the word “social”, as applied to our subject, has a broad meaning. First of all, in the
broadest sense, it means that everything cultural is social” (Vygotsky 1997b, p. 106).
52 N. Veresov

3.2 Perezhivanie, Social Environment, and Social

Situation of Development

3.2.1 Social Environment as a Source of Development

In contrast to “classical” developmental theories which explain development as a

process determined by two groups of factors––biological and social––
cultural-historical theory characterises the social environment not as a factor, but as
a source of development. Vygotsky claims:
The social environment is the source for the appearance of all specific human properties of
the personality gradually acquired by the child or the source of social development of the
child, which is concluded in the process of actual interaction of “ideal” and present forms
(Vygotsky 1998, p. 203).

However, what does “social environment as the source of development” mean?

There are two more concepts, which bring psychological content to this general
claim. The first one is the concept of “social situation of development”:
…at the beginning of each age period, there develops a completely original, exclusive
single and unique relation specific to the given age, between the child and reality, mainly
the social reality, that surrounds him. We call this relation the social situation of devel-
opment at given age. The social situation of development represents the initial moment for
all dynamic changes that occur in development during the given period. It determines
wholly and completely the forms and the path along which the child will acquire ever newer
personality characteristics, drawing them from the social reality as from the basic source of
development, the path along which the social becomes the individual. Thus, the first
question we must answer in studying the dynamics of any age is to explain the social
situation of development (Vygotsky 1998, p. 198).

The concept of social situation of development, on one hand, characterises the

social world as a source of development and, on the other hand, describes a special
type of relation between the child and the social environment, a kind of starting
point of development of the child’s higher forms of behaviour and consciousness.
In other words, social situation of development is not a social environment; it is a
social situation of development as a dynamic system of relations and interactions of
a child and social environment. It, therefore, reflects the influence of a social reality
on a child development and at the same time foregrounds what a child brings to the
social environment.
The second concept is the “interaction of ideal and primary (present) forms.”
Introducing this concept Vygotsky gives the following example:
We have a child who has only just begun to speak and he pronounces single words… The
child speaks in one word phrases, but his mother talks to him in language which is already
grammatically and syntactically formed and which has a large vocabulary, even though it is
being toned down for the child’s benefit. All the same, she speaks using the fully perfected
form of speech. Let us agree to call this developed form, which is supposed to make its
appearance at the end of the child’s development, the final or ideal form - ideal in the sense
that it acts as a model for that which should be achieved at the end of the developmental
period; and final in the sense that it represents what the child is supposed to attain at the end
3 The Concept of Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical Theory … 53

of his development. And let us call the child’s form of speech the primary or rudimentary4
form (Vygotsky 1994, p. 347–348).

If no appropriate ideal form can be found in the environment, and the devel-
opment of the child, for whatever reason, is to take place outside these specific
conditions, i.e. without any interaction with the final (ideal) form, then this proper
form will fail to develop in the child. The following example makes this point
clearer:
Try to imagine a child who is growing up among deaf people and is surrounded by deaf and
dumb parents and children his own age. Will he be able to develop speech?… Speech will
not develop at all in such a child. In order for speech to develop, it is necessary for this ideal
form to be present in the environment and to interact with the child’s rudimentary form;
only then can speech development be achieved (ibid, p. 349).

In a broader sense, the “ideal form” might be considered as any kind of

developed cultural form of behaviour and interaction the child meets in her social
environment. Vygotsky stresses that the interaction between the developed (ideal)
and the present (primary) forms is a distinguishing feature and “the greatest
peculiarity of child development in contrast to other types of development”
(Vygotsky 2001, p. 112–113).
The child’s development and its “individual developmental trajectory” depends
on (1) what kind of social situation the child is involved in, (2) what kind of ideal
forms the social surrounding presents to the child, and (3) what kind of interactions
take place between the child’s real forms and social ideal forms.

3.2.2 Perezhivanie and Social Environment: Vygotsky’s

Example

Let us examine an example of perezhivanie given by Vygotsky. In The Problem of

Environment (Vygotsky 1994, 2001) he gives an example which shows the role and
place of a child’s perezhivanie.
He begins the description of an example with a very general statement:
…for a proper understanding of the role which environment plays in child development it is
always necessary to approach environment not with an absolute but a relative yardstick…
Environment should not be regarded as a condition5 of development… but one should
always approach environment from the point of view of the relationship which exists
between the child and its environment at a given stage of his development (Vygotsky 1994,
p. 338).

4
In Russian original text the term начальная форма is used (Vygotsky 2001, p. 83) which might
be translated as “incipient form”.
5
In the Russian text the word обстановка (surrounding) was used: Среду следует рассматривать
при этом не как обстановку развития… (Vygotsky 2001, p. 71). Condition in Russian is
условие.
54 N. Veresov

Two valuable points should be mentioned in regard to this citation. First,

Vygotsky approaches the problem of environment from its role in child develop-
ment (social formation of mind) and second, what is important is not the social
environment per se, but the relationship between the child and his or her social
environment. This statement has direct connections with the concept of the “social
situation of development” as a starting point of Vygotsky’s considerations.
However, what is the most important indicator of this relationship between the child
and the environment? Vygotsky continues:
…the essential factors6 which explain the influence of environment7 on the psychological
development of children, and on the development of their conscious personalities, are made
up of their… perezhivanija8 The… perezhivanie, arising from any situation or from any
aspect of his environment,9 determines what kind of influence this situation or this envi-
ronment will have on the child. Therefore, it is not any of the factors10 in themselves (if
taken without reference to the child) which determines how they will influence the future
course of his development, but the same factors11 refracted through the prism of the
child’s… perezhivanie (Vygotsky 1994, p. 339–340).

To clarify this general theoretical statement Vygotsky continues with the fol-
lowing example:
We are dealing with three children, brought to us from one family. The external situation in
this family is the same for all three children… The mother drinks and, as a result, appar-
ently suffers from several nervous and psychological disorders. The children find them-
selves in a very difficult situation. When drunk, and during these breakdowns, the mother
had once attempted to throw one of the children out of the window and she regularly beat
them or threw them to the floor. In a word, the children are living in conditions of dread and
fear due to these circumstances (Ibid).

Despite the fact that the external situation looks the same for all children, there
are essential differences in respect to their development:
The three children are brought to our clinic, but each one of them presents a completely
different picture of disrupted development, caused by the same situation. The same cir-
cumstances result in an entirely different picture for the three children (Ibid).

The youngest of these children

…reacts to the situation by developing a number of neurotic symptoms, i.e. symptoms of a
defensive nature. He is simply overwhelmed by the horror of what is happening to him. As

6
In the Russian text the word моменты (moments) is used: существенными моментами для
определения влияния среды … (Vygotsky 2001, p. 72). Factor in Russian is фактор.
7
In the Russian text—для определения влияния среды (Vygotsky 2001, p. 72–73), which can be
translated “for defining the influence of the environment”.
8
Here the word perezhivanie is used in plural form—«переживания».
9
Perezhivanie of certain situation, perezhivanie of any part of this environment—«переживание
какой-нибудь ситуации, переживание какой-нибудь части среды» in the Russian text
(Vygotsky 2001, p. 73).
10
Moment (момент) in the Russian original (Ibid).
11
The same, moment (момент) in the Russian original (Ibid).
3 The Concept of Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical Theory … 55

a result, he develops attacks of terror, enuresis and he develops a stammer, sometimes being
unable to speak at all as he loses his voice. In other words, the child’s reaction amounts to a
state of complete depression and helplessness in the face of this situation. (Ibid)

The second child approached the situation differently. He was

…developing an extremely agonizing condition, a state of inner conflict… On the one
hand, from the child’s point of view, the mother is an object of painful attachment,12 and on
the other, she represents a source of all kinds of terrors and terrible emotional experiences
[perezhivanija] for the child.13 The second child was brought to us with this kind of deeply
pronounced conflict and a sharply colliding internal contradiction expressed in a simulta-
neously positive and negative attitude towards the mother, a terrible attachment to her and
an equally terrible hate for her,14 combined with terribly contradictory behaviour. He asked
to be sent home immediately, but expressed terror when the subject of his going home was
brought up (Vygotsky 1994, p. 340).

Finally, the third and eldest child

…showed signs of some precocious maturity, seriousness and solicitude. He already
understood the situation. He understood that their mother was ill and he pitied her. He could
see that the younger children found themselves in danger when their mother was in one of
her states of frenzy. And he had a special role. He must calm his mother down, make certain
that she is prevented from harming the little ones and comfort them. Quite simply, he has
become the senior member of the family, the only one whose duty it was to look after
everyone else. As a result of this, the entire course of his development underwent a striking
change. This was not a lively child with normal, lively, simple interests, appropriate to his
age and exhibiting a lively level of activity. It was a child whose course of normal
development was severely disrupted, a different type of child (Vygotsky 1994, p. 340–341).

How can one explain why exactly the same environmental conditions exert three
different types of influence on these three different children?
It can be explained because each of the children has a different attitude to the situation…
Each of the children experienced15 the situation in a different way. One of them experi-
enced it as an inexplicable, incomprehensible horror which has left him in a state of
defenselessness. The second was experiencing it consciously, as a clash between his strong
attachment, and his no less strong feeling of fear, hate and hostility. And the third child
experienced it, to some extent, as far as it is possible for a 10–11 year old boy, as a
misfortune which has befallen the family and which required him to put all other things

12
In the Russian original the expression «предмет большой привязанности» (object of
great/intensive attachment) is used (Vygotsky 2001, p. 73–74).
13
In the Russian text «источник самых тяжёлых впечатлений» (a source of all kinds of… terrible
impressions for the child) is used (Ibid). Nothing is said about emotional experience or per-
ezhivanie in this sentence.
14
In the Russian original “страшной привязанности к ней и страшной ненависти к ней” (a
terrific attachment to her and an equally terrific hate for her). The word страшной here means the
degree of attachment (“deep”, “intensive”, “strong”, “terrific”), not the character of it (“dangerous”
or “terrible”).
15
Everywhere in is this quote the Russian verb perezhival (переживал) is used. This is the past
singular grammatical form of the verb perezhivat' (переживать), from which the noun per-
ezhivanie has been derived.
56 N. Veresov

aside, to try somehow to mitigate the misfortune and to help both the sick mother and the
children (Vygotsky 1994, p. 341).

The conclusion is:

So… depending on the fact that the same situation had been experienced by the three
children in three different ways,16 the influence which this situation exerted on their
development also turns out to be different (Vygotsky 1994, p. 341).

Further, Vygotsky summarises the whole issue by saying that

… by citing this example, I only wished to clarify the idea that… paedology17 does not
investigate the environment as such without regard to the child, but instead looks at the role
and influence of the environment on the course of development. It ought to always be
capable of finding the particular prism through which the influence of the environment on
the child is refracted, i.e. it ought to be able to find the relationship which exists between the
child and its environment, the child’s…perezhivanie, in other words how a child becomes
aware of, interprets, and emotionally relates to a certain event. This is such a prism which
determines the role and influence of the environment on the development of…the child’s
character, his psychological development, etc. (Vygotsky 1994, p. 341)

He concludes the explanation of the example by a general statement, which

returns us back to the concept of the social environment as a source of development.
…the influence of environment on child development will, along with other types of
influences, have to be assessed by taking the degree of understanding, awareness and
insight of what is going on in the environment into account (Vygotsky 1994, p. 343).
The environment exerts this influence… via the child’s perezhivanija, i.e. depending on
how the child has managed to work out his inner attitude to the various aspects of the
different situations occurring in the environment. The environment determines the type of
development depending on the degree of awareness of this environment which the child has
managed to reach (Ibid, p. 346).

3.2.3 Social Environment and Perezhivanie:

Relations and Unresolved Problems

Vygotsky’s example of perezhivanie allows to take a step forward in understanding

the concept of the social environment as a source of mental development as it was
developed in cultural-historical theory.

16
In the Russian original text «у троих детей возникло три разных переживания одной и той
же ситуации» (three different perezhivanie of the same situation appeared in three children)
(Vygotsky 2001, p. 74–75).
17
Paedology was the complex scientific discipline of child development, which existed in the
Soviet Union from the 1920s to the mid 1930s and was banned by a Communist Party Decree in
1936. Vygotsky was one of the founders of paedology (for details see Schneuwly 1994 and
Langford 2005).
3 The Concept of Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical Theory … 57

First, the above example shows that perezhivanie is seen neither as a separate
single psychological process, nor as function or a state of consciousness.
Perezhivanie is not only an emotional experience, although it includes emotional
components. As Vygotsky puts it, in perezhivanie there is an indivisible unity of
personality and the social environment (personal characteristics and environmental
characteristics) on the one hand, and the complex unity of different psychological
processes including emotions, understanding, awareness, insights, thinking, mem-
ory, attitudes, addictions, inner conflicts, and even dread and fear, etc., on the other
hand.
Second, in cultural-historical theory, perezhivanie is viewed not as an empirical
fact about a given moment in time; it is understood from a developmental18 per-
spective. Describing this example on three pages of his paper, Vygotsky many
times uses and repeats words and expressions like “child development,” “the
psychological development of children,” “future course of his development,”
“picture of disrupted development,” “the entire course of his development under-
went a striking change,” “…whose course of normal development was severely
disrupted,” “the situation exerted on their development,” “an influence of the
environment on the course of development” and so on.
Third, perezhivanie “is a prism through which the influence of the environment
on child development is refracted” and this is not a pure metaphor. What is
important is that perezhivanie is a tool (concept) for analysing the influence of
sociocultural environment not on the individual per se, but on the process of
development of the individual. In other words, the environment determines the
development of the individual through the individual’s perezhivanie of the envi-
ronment (Vygotsky 1998, p. 294). This approach enlarges the cultural-historical
understanding of development as it challenges the principle of reflection and
introduces the principle of refraction. The developing individual is always a part of
the social situation and the relation of the individual to the environment and the
environment to the individual occurs through the perezhivanie of the individual
(Vygotsky 1998, p. 294).
Refraction is a principle, which shows the dialectical relations of the social and
the individual in the process of development. The social becomes the individual,
but the dialectics of this becoming are that only those components of the social
environment that are refracted by the perezhivanie of the individual achieve
developmental significance (Vygotsky 1998, p. 294).
This principle shows how the same social environment affects the unique
developmental trajectories of different individuals. The example of the three chil-
dren shows that the same social environment, being differently refracted through the
perezhivanie of the three different children, brought about three different devel-
opmental outcomes and individual developmental trajectories. In a certain sense, it
would not be an exaggeration to say that the social environment as a source of

18
By developmental perspective I mean a sociocultural genesis of human mind, the process of
“how the social becomes the individual” (Vygotsky 1998, p. 198).
58 N. Veresov

development of the individual exists only when the individual participates actively
in this environment, by acting, interacting, interpreting, understanding, recreating
and redesigning it. An individual’s perezhivanie makes the social situation into the
social situation of development.
To state a certain, general, formal position it would be correct to say that the environment
determines the development of the child through experience19 of the environment;… the
child is a part of the social situation, and the relation of the child to the environment and the
environment to the child occurs through experience.20.. of the child himself; the forces of
the environment acquire a controlling significance because the child experiences21 them
(Vygotsky 1998, p. 294).

So, without the concept of perezhivanie it is hardly possible to understand the

psychological content of the concepts of “social situation of development” and “the
interaction between ideal and present forms”. Only by being taken together can
these three concepts create the complete psychological content of the idea of the
social environment as a source of mental development in its wholeness.
On the other hand, identifying the place and the theoretical content of the
concept of perezhivanie (P2) and the principle of refraction in relation to these two
fundamental concepts creates two more theoretical and methodological challenges.
The first challenge is related to interactions of ideal and present forms and looks
as a contradiction. On one hand, as I discussed earlier, the interaction between the
ideal and present forms is defined as a distinguishing feature and “the greatest
peculiarity of child development” (Vygotsky 2001, p. 113). On the other hand, it
contradicts to the definition of interaction of the ideal and present forms as “the very
essence of cultural development” (Vygotsky 1997a, p. 99). No features of a certain
process, even distinguishing ones cannot be considered as its essence.
The second theoretical challenge is related to the concept of social situation of
development. Social situation of development is a system of unique and dynamic
relationship of a child and her social environment, which occurs through per-
ezhivanie. This means that social situation of development exists as a unique and
dynamic unity of child’s individual characteristics and various aspects of social
environment. Yet, what is the psychological content of this unity? Are there any
ways to study this unity and are there any tools of analysis of the structure and
dynamics of this unity? In the following two sections of this chapter I will try to
present my arguments and discuss possible ways of improving the theoretical
content of the concept of perezhivanie so as to resolve these two challenges.

19
“Переживание” is used in Russian original (Vygotsky 2001, p. 214).
20
The same, «переживание» in Russian original (Ibid).
21
«Переживает» in Russian original text (Ibid).
3 The Concept of Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical Theory … 59

3.3 Perezhivanie and General Genetic Law

of Cultural Development

Is the interaction of ideal and present form a distinguishing feature of the cultural
development of a child or it is a very essence of cultural development? It seems that
in order to find the answer we need to “zoom out” the focus of our theoretical lens
and take a look at the general genetic law of cultural development and how this law
is related to the concept of perezhivanie.
The general genetic law of the cultural development of higher functions is the
basic and fundamental law in cultural-historical theory. However, there is some-
thing which I hope can bring a new perspective to this topic.22

3.3.1 General Genetic Law, Drama and Perezhivanie

General genetic law of cultural development says:

“…every function in the cultural development of the child appears on the stage twice, in
two planes, first, the social, then the psychological, first between people as an intermental
category, then within the child as a intramental category…Genetically, social relations, real
relations of people, stand behind all the higher mental functions and their relations
(Vygotsky 1997b, p. 106)

According to this law, every function appears firstly on the social plane, among
people. However, social relations are not the “area,” not the field, and not the
“level” where mental functions appear. The social relations themselves become the
individual functions:
“…every higher mental function was external because it was social before it became an
internal strictly mental function; it was formerly a social relation between two people
(Vygotsky 1997b, p. 106)

However, if every higher mental function was a social relation between people,
does it mean that every social relation becomes a mental function? The answer in
cultural-historical theory is no. Cultural-historical theory has a clear notion of what
specific types of social relations can become a mental function. In a word, these are
“dramatic” social relations. I am referring to the term “category.”23
In Russian, the term «кaтeгopия» has different meanings. One of them is a
synonym of “rank.” For example, in 1924, when Vygotsky moved to Moscow and
started his scientific career, his first official position at Moscow State Institute of
Experimental psychology was “the scientific worker of second category”

22
I undertook detailed analysis of the formulation of the general genetic law in my previous
publications (Veresov 2004, 2005, 2010, 2014), so here I just repeat it in brief with the main
emphasis on what is necessary for the topic of this Chapter.
23
Категория (Vygotsky 1983, p. 145).
60 N. Veresov

(Vygodskaia and Lifanova 1999, p. 5824). Another possible meaning of кaтeгopия

originates from Hegel’s philosophy and refers to the notion of “the concept”. For
example, in Thinking and Speech, Vygotsky uses the word “categorical thinking” as
a synonym of “thinking with concepts” (Vygotsky 1987, p. 84–88).
Which of these two meanings is valid referring to the formulation of the general
genetic law of development in Vygotsky’s theory? The best way is to try to find an
answer in Vygotsky’s texts. The first quotation refers to the requirement of
experimental research of psychological processes:
Processes must be analyzed, and through analysis, the true relation that lies at the base of
these processes, behind the external form of their manifestation, must be disclosed
(Vygotsky 1997b, p. 70).

The key words here are “the true relation”. Yet, what does it mean to disclose the
“true relation,” and what kind of relation is this “true relation”?
Genetically, social relations, real relations of people, stand behind all the higher func-
tions… From this, one of the basic principles…is the principle of division of functions
among people, the division into two of what is now merged into one, the experimental
unfolding of a higher mental process into the drama that occurs among people (Vygotsky
1997b, p. 106).

In the Concrete Human psychology written in 1929 (Vygotsky 1989) this is

given in a specified way:
Renewed division into two of what had been fused in one (Cf. modern labor), the
experimental unfolding of a higher process…into a small drama (p. 59).

This is followed by a general conclusion

…the basic principle of the functioning of higher functions… is social, entailing interaction
of functions, in place of interaction between people. They can be most fully developed in
the form of drama (Ibid).

Thus, for Vygotsky, “drama which occurs among people” is “an inter-mental
(social) plane of higher mental functions.” Inter-mental social relation is not an
ordinary social relation between the two individuals. This is a social relation that
appears as a social collision, the contradiction between two people, a dramatic event,
a drama between two individuals. Being emotionally and mentally experienced as
social drama (on the social plane) it later becomes the individual intra-psychological
category (on the psychological plane). Aspects of the relations between inter-and
intra- psychological functions as discussed here, are also presented in Fleer and Fleer
and March (March and Fleer, this Volume), but in the context of emotions and
emotion regulation. The inter-mental “category,” i.e. an emotionally experienced
collision might bring radical changes to the individual’s mind, and therefore it is a
sort of act of development of mental functions––the individual becomes different, he
rises higher and above his own behaviour. Without internal drama, an intra-mental
category, such kinds of mental changes are hardly possible. So, the term “drama” is a

24
In Russian «научный работник второй категории».
3 The Concept of Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical Theory … 61

key word here. The second key word is perezhivanie. As there is no dramatic
collision without such critical perezhivanie, there is no development without per-
ezhivanie. Drama (social collision) and perezhivanie are essential for understanding
how the general genetic law of development works, how the social becomes the
individual.
Coming back to Vygotsky’s example with the three children and their mother,
we can see that the concept of dramatic event is very important: in the same social
situation, three children had three different perezhivanie and therefore experienced
three different dramas. This means that the initial inter-mental forms of their rela-
tions were essentially different in the same social situation. Consequently, because
the initial inter-mental forms were different, the children’s social situations of
development and their individual developmental trajectories became different.
So, according to the general genetic law of cultural development, every higher
mental function appears twice—first it appears as a social relation in the form of
experienced external dramatic collision. Therefore, perezhivanie is not only a kind
of prism which refracts the interaction of the ideal and present form. The concept of
perezhivanie determines the very essence of such an interaction. Perezhivanie is the
personal way of experiencing a dramatic event (inter-mental category). It is a form
in which this dramatic event is experienced (refracted) by an individual.
So, the theoretical content of the concept of perezhivanie (P2) would remain
incomplete without “zooming out” and identifying its relations with the general
genetic law of cultural development. And vice versa, the content of the general
genetic law remain unclear without a link to the concept of perezhivanie. I believe
such “zooming out” resolves the first theoretical challenge. Yes, interaction of ideal
and present forms is a distinguishing feature of human cultural development.
However, the collision, the dramatic confrontation of these two forms refracted
through critical perezhivanie is the very essence of the process of cultural
development.
The very essence of cultural development consists in a confrontation of developed cultural
forms of behavior which confront the child and primitive forms that characterize his own
behavior. (Vygotsky 1997b, p. 99)

Interaction not always happens in a form of collision and confrontation, but

dramatic collisions and confrontations are dialectical contradictions, which are
moving forces of a process of development. Dialectical contradictions are a very
essence of development; dialectical contradictions of inter-mental and intra-mental
planes are the very essence of a child cultural development. The concept of per-
ezhivanie is a tool to discover the dialectical process of how inter-mental becomes
intra-mental, how the “social becomes the individual” (Veresov 2016b).
62 N. Veresov

3.4 Perezhivanie as a Unit of Analysis

In this section of the chapter I will present my arguments in response to the second
theoretical challenge related to rethinking of the theoretical content of the concept
of perezhivanie. As I said earlier, rethinking the content of P2 in relation to the
social as a source of development generates a question: Social situation of devel-
opment is a system of unique and dynamic relationship of a child and her social
environment, which occurs through perezhivanie. This means that social situation
of development exists as a unique and dynamic unity of child’s individual char-
acteristics and various aspects of social environment. Yet, what is the psychological
content of this unity? Are there any ways to study this unity and are there any tools
of analysis of the structure and dynamics of this unity? I believe we can find the
answer if we take a look on the idea of the units of analysis as it is developed in
cultural-historical theory.

3.4.1 Unity and Unit: Analysis by Units

Before coming to this point, it is necessary to explain the difference between three
terms, namely “unity,” “ unit,” and “element”.
There are two terms in Russian—eдинcтвo (unity) and eдиницa (unit). The first,
eдинcтвo [edinstvo] (unity), is used when we speak about a complex whole, a
complex system consisting of a number of parts, components, elements etc.25 One
of the meanings of the second term, eдиницa [edinitsa] (unit), is a part, a com-
ponent, or an element of a certain complex whole. In other words, “unity”
(eдинcтвo) is used in relation to the whole, whereas “unit” is often related to the
parts of the whole. If we put it in general way, we could say that a certain system
(the complex whole) in its unity (eдинcтвo) consists of certain units (eдиницa).
Very often all these terms––parts, components, units, elements––are used as
synonyms. However, Vygotsky clearly distinguished two main types of analysis in
psychology which underlie two main approaches to the investigation of mental
formations (Vygotsky 1987). The first of these approaches is the decomposition of
the complex mental whole into its elements. This type of analysis can be compared
with a chemical analysis of water in which water is decomposed into hydrogen and
oxygen. The essential feature of this form of analysis is that its products are of a
different nature than the whole from which they were derived. The elements lack
the characteristics inherent in the whole and they possess properties that it does not
possess (Vygotsky 1987, p. 45).
When the researchers approaches development of a complex whole by decom-
posing of the whole into elements, he

25
For example in Russian “consciousness is a unity of affect and intellect” is “сознание есть
единство аффекта и интеллекта».
3 The Concept of Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical Theory … 63

…adopts the strategy of the man who resorts to the decomposition of water into hydrogen
and oxygen in his search for a scientific explanation of the characteristics of water, its
capacity to extinguish fire or its conformity to Archimedes law for example. This man will
discover, to his chagrin, that hydrogen burns and oxygen sustains combustion. He will
never succeed in explaining the characteristics of the whole by analyzing the characteristics
of its elements (Vygotsky 1987, p. 45).

Vygotsky explains that a psychology that decomposes the complex mental

whole into its elements in an attempt to explain its characteristics will search in vain
for the unity that is characteristic of the whole. These characteristics are inherent in
the phenomenon only as a unified whole. “When the whole is analyzed into its
elements, these characteristics evaporate. In his attempt to reconstruct these char-
acteristics, the investigator is left with no alternative but to search for external,
mechanical forms of interaction between the elements” (Vygotsky 1987, p. 45).
An entirely different form of analysis is the partitioning of the complex whole
into units.
In contrast to the element, the unit (1) possesses all the basic characteristics of
the whole, and (2) is a “vital and further indivisible part of the whole” (Vygotsky
1982, p. 16).26
The key to the explanation of the characteristics of water lies not in the investigation of its
chemical formula but in the investigation of its molecule and its molecular movements. In
precisely the same sense, the living cell is the real unit of biological analysis because it
preserves the basic characteristics of life that are inherent in the living organism (Vygotsky
1987, p. 46).

What does this mean for psychology and psychological analysis? The conclusion
Vygotsky drew is that a psychology concerned with the study of the complex whole
must comprehend the necessity of analysis by units and not elements. In other
words, psychology must identify those units in which the characteristics of the
whole are present (Vygotsky 1987, p. 47).

3.4.2 Perezhivanie a Unit of Personal and

Environmental Characteristics

Let us take a look at two quotations from Vygotsky’s key works related to
perezhivanie.
The first quotation is from The Problem of Environment:
Perezhivanie is a unit where, on the one hand, in an indivisible state, the environment is
represented, i.e. that which is being experienced—perezhivanie is always related to
something which is found outside the person—and on the other hand, what is represented is

26
Here Vygotsky’s words “далее неразложимыми живыми частями этого единства” (further
indivisible part of the whole) were mistakenly translated as “irreducible part of the whole”
(Vygotsky 1987, p. 46).
64 N. Veresov

how I, myself, am experiencing this, i.e., all the personal characteristics and all the envi-
ronmental characteristics are represented in perezhivanie…. So, in perezhivanie we are
always dealing with an indivisible unity of personal characteristics and situational char-
acteristics, which are represented in the perezhivanie (Vygotsky 1994, p. 342).

At first glance, it looks controversial as perezhivanie is presented as a unit (in the

first sentence) and as a unity (in the last sentence). However, there is no contra-
diction here. In a molecule of water we deal with an indivisible unity of oxygen and
hydrogen. This makes a molecule of water a unit of analysis of the whole unity
(water). The living cell is a unit of biological analysis as in this unit we are dealing
with a unity of the living organism. In line with this, perezhivanie is not the unity of
personal characteristics and situational characteristics; it is a unit, a “vital and
further indivisible part of the whole” unity of personal and situational character-
istics, which retains all its basic features and qualities. Perezhivanie itself is not the
unity, but in perezhivanie we are dealing with an indivisible unity of personal and
situational characteristics like in a molecule of water we deal with the unity of
oxygen and hydrogen (water).
The second quotation is from The Crisis at Age Seven. The English text shows
perezhivanie as a unity of environment and personality (Vygotsky 1998, p. 294).
However, comparison with the Russian original text (Vygotsky 1984, p. 382) which
I give in parallel, shows a radically different picture (Table 3.1).
So, there is nowhere that Vygotsky speaks about perezhivanie as a unity of
personal and situational characteristics; perezhivanie is presented not as a unity
(eдинcтвo), but as a unit (eдиницa) of the personality and the environment, as an
internal relation to reality.

Table 3.1 Parallel translation 1

Vygotsky (1998), Vol. 5, p. 294 Vygotsky (1984), Vol. 4, p. 382a
A unity can be noted in the study of A unit can be noted in the study of
personality and environment. This unity in personality and environment. This unit in
psychopathology and psychology has been psychopathology and psychology has been
called experience. The child’s experience is called perezhivanie. The child’s perezhivanie
also this kind of very simple unity about is also this kind of very simple unit about
which we must not say that in itself it which we must not say that in itself it
represents the influence of the environment represents the influence of the environment
on the child or the individuality of the child on the child or the individuality of the child
himself; experience is the unity of the himself; perezhivanie is the unit of the
personality and the environment as it is personality and the environment as it is
represented in development. Thus, in represented in development. Thus, in
development, the unity of environmental and development, the unity of environmental and
personality factors is achieved in a series of personality factors happens in a series of
experiences of the child. Experience must be perezhivanie of the child. Perezhivanie must
understood as the external relation of the be understood as the internal relation of the
child as a person to one factor or another of child as a person to one factor or another of
reality reality
a
My translation from Russian
3 The Concept of Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical Theory … 65

3.4.3 Perezhivanie a Unit of Human Consciousness

Perezhivanie was introduced by Vygotsky as a unit of human consciousness.

In Table 3.2, the English text does not say anything about perezhivanie as a unit
of human consciousness, it positions perezhivanie as a unity and therefore the
difference between “unity,” “unit,” and “element” disappears. The Russian original
text provides us with much better opportunity for understanding. Thus, (1) con-
sciousness is a unity and perezhivanie is a unit of consciousness; (2) attention and
thinking are not units since the basic properties of consciousness are not given, they
are elements of consciousness whereas perezhivanie is a dynamic unit of
consciousness.
Given that perezhivanie is a unit of the environmental and personal character-
istics as the first quotation shows (let us call it Unit1) and it is a unit of human
consciousness, which comes from the second quote (Unit2), could we conclude that
in Vygotsky’s understanding consciousness and the unity of environmental and
personal characteristics is the same? Or to put it another way, is human con-
sciousness and the unity of environmental and personal characteristics one and the
same complex living whole? And, if not, how is it possible that perezhivanie is a
unit of analysis of both?
We do not have any evidence in Vygotsky’s published texts on the similarity
between the two. Yet, there is a difference. It seems the way to recognise the
difference is to apply a developmental approach which means to look at a concept
as a result of generalisation. “At any stage of its development, the concept is an act

Table 3.2 Parallel translation 2

Vygotsky (1998), p. 294 Vygotsky (1984), p. 382a
All experience is always experience of Every perezhivanie is always a perezhivanie
something. There is no experience that would of something. There is no perezhivanie that
not be experience of something just as there is would not be a perezhivanie of something just
no act of consciousness that would not be an as there is no act of consciousness that would
act of being conscious of something not be an act of being conscious of something
But every experience is my experience. In But every perezhivanie is my perezhivanie. In
modern theory, experience is introduced as a modern theory, perezhivanie is introduced as
unity of consciousness, that is, a unity in a unit of consciousness, that is, a unit in
which the basic properties of consciousness which the basic properties of consciousness
are given as such, while in attention and in are given as such, while in attention and in
thinking, the connection of consciousness is thinking, the connection of consciousness is
not given. Attention is not a unity of not given. Attention is not a unit of
consciousness, but is an element of consciousness, but is an element of
consciousness in which there is no series of consciousness in which there is no series of
other elements, while the unity of other elements, while the unity of
consciousness as such disappears, and consciousness as such disappears, and
experience is the actual dynamics of the unity perezhivanie is the actual dynamic unit of
of consciousness, that is, the whole which consciousness, that is, the consciousness
comprises consciousness consists of perezhivanie
a
My translation from Russian original
66 N. Veresov

of generalization” (Vygotsky 1987, p. 169). In other words, concepts are the result
of generalising, or better to say, conceptualising a certain reality. A concept has its
theoretical content; however, conceptualisation never happens in empty space, on
nothing. What we conceptualise is not less important than how we conceptualise.
This moves us back to P1.
As we do have two meanings of P1––(1) perezhivanie as an act, a process of
experiencing and (2) perezhivanie as the content, as what is experienced, we might
presume that Unit1 is a result of conceptualisation of P1.1 and Unit2 is a result of
conceptualisation of P1.2. This difference, the difference between P1.1 and P1.2,
might be illustrated by an analogy of thinking—how we think (the process of
thinking) is not the same as what we think (the content, thoughts). From here Unit1
is related to the process of experiencing and therefore is a unit of analysis of the
unity of environmental and personal characteristics. Unit2 is a result of conceptu-
alisation of perezhivanie as the content of what happens in individual consciousness
and this makes it a unit of consciousness (Veresov and Fleer 2016, p. 9).

3.5 Back to Perezhivanie as P2; Bringing It All Together

The aim of this chapter is to initiate a further discussion on the theoretical content
and context of the concept of perezhivanie as a possible (and I think, necessary)
step forward in the transformation of a tantalising notion into a concept with clear
meaning (Smagorinsky 2011, p. 339). In doing this we have to make an important
distinction between the two meanings of perezhivanie presented in Vygotsky’s
original texts––perezhivanie as a psychological phenomena/process which can be
empirically observed and studied (P1) and perezhivanie as a concept, a theoretical
tool for analysis of the process of development (P2). I think, this distinction is an
important step forward in developing the generative understanding of the concept of
perezhivanie within the cultural-historical theoretical framework.
This chapter is an attempt to disclose the theoretical content of perezhivanie as a
concept (P2) in two main directions: (1) how is this concept related to the process of
cultural development, and (2) what is the place of this concept in the system of
other concepts and principles of cultural-historical theory. In other words, the aim
of this chapter is to unpack Vygotsky’s words that “perezhivanie is a concept which
allows us to study the role and influence of environment on the psychological
development of children in the analysis of the laws of development” (Vygotsky
1994, p. 343).
The concept of perezhivanie is a powerful theoretical tool for researching the
role of environment in mental development which allows us to understand the
social environment as a source of development. It clarifies and enriches the theo-
retical content of social environment as a source of development stating that only
those components of the social environment that are refracted through the per-
ezhivanie of the individual achieve developmental significance. Hence, the concept
of perezhivanie introduces the principle of refraction in contrast to the classical
3 The Concept of Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical Theory … 67

principle of reflection. This new and revolutionary principle allows us to clarify the
content of two other concepts—“the social situation of development” and “inter-
action of ideal and present forms” . The social situation of development is a unique
relation of the child to the environment, but what makes it unique is that the relation
of the child to the environment and the environment to the child occurs through
perezhivanie. This makes perezhivanie an important and decisive component of the
social situation of development.
Development is a dialectical, complex and contradictory process of quantitative
and qualitative changes. In relation to human development, in Vygotsky’s words,
higher mental functions “can be most fully developed in the form of drama”
(Vygotsky 1989, p. 59). The general genetic law of cultural development empha-
sises the place and role of social (inter-psychological) drama as a first form of
existence of higher mental functions (Vygotsky 1997b, p. 106). The social becomes
the individual, but the transformation of inter-mental to intra-mental is not a linear
process, it is not a direct transition because it happens through perezhivanie.
Therefore, perezhivanie is not only a kind of prism which refracts the interaction of
the ideal and present form. The concept of perezhivanie determines the very essence
of such an interaction. Perezhivanie is the personal way of experiencing a dramatic
event (inter-mental category). It is the form in which this dramatic event is refracted
and experienced by an individual. The unique organisation and hierarchy of higher
mental functions is the result of the unique dramatic inter-psychological collisions
that have happened in the life of the human being and of the process of that human
being overcoming them, the intra-psychological result of the individual’s unique
developmental trajectory. In overcoming social dramatic collisions (the dramas of
life) a human being creates his/her unique architecture of personality. There is no
development without drama, there is no drama without perezhivanie. Rethinking
the theoretical content of the concept of perezhivanie might open a new direction in
developing psychology in terms of drama (Vygotsky 1989, p. 71).
Perezhivanie is neither a unity of individual and environmental characteristics,
nor a unity of human consciousness. First, it is a unit, a “vital and further indivisible
part of the whole” unity of personal and situational characteristics, which retains all
its basic features and qualities. Perezhivanie itself is not the unity, but in per-
ezhivanie we are dealing with an indivisible unity of personal and situational
characteristics like in a molecule of water we deal with the unity of oxygen and
hydrogen (water). This understanding of perezhivanie as a unit is a result of con-
ceptualising perezhivanie a process of experiencing (P1.1). Second, perezhivanie as
a dynamic unit of consciousness is a result of the theoretical conceptualisation of
perezhivanie as content (P1.2).
In the late 1920s, Vygotsky wrote:
Theoretically, psychology has long since rejected the idea that development of the child is a
purely quantitative process. All agree that here we have a process that is much more
complex, a process not exhausted by quantitative changes alone. But in practice, psy-
chology is confronted with having to disclose this complex process of development in all its
real completeness and to detect all those qualitative changes and transformations that
refashion child behavior (Vygotsky 1997a, p. 98).
68 N. Veresov

In my opinion, rethinking the theoretical content of the concept of perezhivanie

constitutes a step forward in fixing the gap. Theoretical contribution of this chapter
could be expressed in the following brief summary:
Perezhivanie is a powerful concept allowing us to study development in its
dialectical complexity.
There is a dialectics in the process of sociocultural genesis of human mind—the
dialectics of evolutional and revolutionary aspects. Perezhivanie is a prism which
refracts influences of social environment on child’s development through interac-
tions of ideal and present forms. However, this general statement needs further
theoretical improvements. There is a special form of perezhivanie (we can call it a
critical or dramatic perezhivanie) as a refraction of a dramatic collision which
appears as a confrontation, a contradiction of an ideal and present form. Being
refracted by critical perezhivanie it might bring qualitative changes to child’s
mental functions and therefore might bring changes to how the child becomes
aware, interprets and relates to sociocultural environment. This in turn, reorganises
the whole social situation of development. Social dramatic events, collisions
refracted through critical perezhivanie produce qualitative changes and “turning
points” in child’s individual developmental trajectories. In this sense, the concept of
critical perezhivanie is an analytical tool which unfolds the dialectics evolutional
and revolutionary aspects of development as well as dialectics of the social and the
individual (Veresov 2016a, 2016b).

References

Antoniadou, V. (2011). Virtual collaboration, ‘perezhivanie’ and teacher learning: A

socio-cultural-historical perspective. Bellaterra Journal of teaching and learning language
and literature, 4(3), 53–70.
Brennan, M. (2014). Perezhivanie: What have we missed about infant care? Contemporary Issues
in Early Childhood, 15, 284–292.
Chen, F. (2015). Parents’ perezhivanie supports children’s development of emotion regulation: A
holistic view. Early child development and care, 185(6), 851–867.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and
instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational
theory in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge.
Daniels, H. (2008). Vygotsky and research. Routledge.
Daniels, H. (2010). Motives, emotion, and change. Cultural-historical psychology, 2, 24–33.
Fakhrutdinova, L. (2010). On the phenomenon of “perezhivanie”. Journal of Russian and East
European Psychology, 48(2), 31–47.
Ferholt, B. (2009). The development of cognition, emotion, imagination and creativity as made
visible through adult-child joint play: perezhivanie through playworlds (Doctoral dissertation).
University of California, San Diego.
Ferholt, B. (2010). A synthetic-analytic method for the study of perezhivanie: Vygotsky literary
analysis applied to playworlds. In M. C. Connery, V. John-Steiner & Ana Marjanovic-Shane
(Eds.), Vygotsky and creativity: a cultural-historical approach to play, meaning making, and
the arts (pp. 163–179). Peter Lang.
Fleer, M. (2013). Theorising Play in the Early Years. Cambridge University Press.
3 The Concept of Perezhivanie in Cultural-Historical Theory … 69

Fleer, M., & Hammer, M. (2013). ‘Perezhivanie’ in group settings: A cultural-historical reading of
emotion regulation. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(3), 127–134.
Langford, P. (2005). Vygotsky’s developmental and educational psychology. Psychology Press.
Mahn, H. (2003). Periods in child development. Vygotsky’s perspective. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis,
V. Ageyev & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 119–138).
Cambridge.
Mahn H., & John-Steiner, V. (2002). The gift of confidence: A Vygotskian view of emotions.
In G. Wells & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for Life in the 21st Century: Sociocultural
Perspectives on the Future of Education (pp. 46–58). Blackwell.
Quiñones, G., & Fleer, M. (2011). Visual Vivencias: A cultural-historical tool for understanding
the lived experiences of young children’s everyday lives. In E. Johansson & J. White (Eds.),
Educational research with our youngest: Voices of infants and toddlers. Netherlands: Springer.
Rieber, R., & Wollock, J. (1997). Notes to the English Edition. On Vygotsky’s creative
development. In The Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky. Vol. 3. Problems of the theory and
history of psychology (pp. 371–390). Plenum.
Schneuwly, B. (1994). Contradiction and development: Vygotsky and paedology. European
Journal of Psychology of Education, 9(4), 281–291.
Smagorinsky, P. (2011). Vygotsky’s stage theory: the psychology of art and the actor under the
direction of perezhivanie. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18, 319–341.
Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1994). Notes on The problem of environment. In R. Van der Veer
& J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 353–354). Blackwell.
Vasilyuk, F. (1991). The psychology of experiencing. New York: Harvester.
Varshava, B., & Vygotsky, L. (1931). Psihologicheskii slovar [Psychological dictionary].
Mocsow: Gosudarstvennoye Uchebno-pedagogicheskoye Izdatelstvo.
Veresov, N. (2004). Zone of proximal development (ZPD): the hidden dimension? In A. Ostern &
R. Heila-Ylikallio (Eds.), Sprak som kultur—brytningar i tid och rum—Language as culture—
tensions in time and space (pp. 13–30). Vaasa.
Veresov, N. (2005). Marxist and non-Marxist aspects of the cultural-historical psychology of
L. S. Vygotsky. Outlines, 7(1), 31–49. Retrieved from http://www.outlines.dk/contents/
Outlines051/Veresov05.pdf
Veresov, N. (2010). Forgotten methodology: Vygotsky’s case. In A. Toomela & J. Valsiner (Eds.),
Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? (pp. 267–295). Charlotte: IAP.
Veresov, N. (2014). Refocusing the lens on development: towards genetic research methodology.
In M. Fleer & A. Ridgway (Eds.). Visual methodologies and digital tools for researching with
young children (pp. 129–149). Springer.
Veresov, N. (2016a). Perezhivanie as a phenomenon and a concept: questions on clarification and
methodological meditations. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 12(3), 129–148. doi:10.17759/
chp.2016120308.
Veresov, N. (2016b). Duality of categories or dialectical concepts? Integrative psychological and
behavioural science, 50(2), 244–256.
Veresov, N., & Fleer, M. (2016). Perezhivanie as a theoretical concept for researching young
children’s development. Mind, Culture and Activity, 23(4), 325–335. doi:10.1080/10749039.
2016.1186198.
Vygodskaia, G. L., & Lifanova, T. M. (1999). Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. Part 1. Journal of
Russian and East European Psychology, 37(2), 23–90.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1971). The psychology of art. Cambridge: The Massachusetts Institute of
Technology Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1982). Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works] (Vol. 2). Moscow: Pedagogika.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1983). Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works] (Vol. 3). Moscow: Pedagogika.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1984). Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works] (Vol. 4). Moscow: Pedagogika.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Psyhologia iskusstva. Moscow: Iskusstvo.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1989). Concrete human psychology. Soviet psychology, 27(2), 53–77.
70 N. Veresov

Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In J. Valsiner & R. Van der Veer (Eds.),
The Vygotsky reader (pp. 347–348). Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997a). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 3). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997b). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 4). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky (Vol. 5). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (2001). Lektsii po pedologii. Izevsk: Izdatelstvo Udmurdskogo Universiteta.

Author Biography

Dr. Nikolay Veresov is an Associate Professor of the Faculty of Education at Monash University,
Australia. He has experience as a day care centre and kindergarten teacher (1987–1991) and
secondary school teacher (1982–1987). He got his first PhD degree in Moscow in 1990 and started
his academic career in Murmansk (Russia) as a senior lecturer (1991–1993) and the Head of
Department of Early Childhood (1993–1997). The second PhD was obtained in University of Oulu
(Finland) in 1998. From 1999 to 2011 he was affiliated to Kajaani Teacher Training Department
(Finland) as a Senior Researcher and the Scientific Director of the international projects. His areas
of interest are development in early years, cultural-historical theory and research methodology.