Letters from Tomis

Introduction

The scientific disciplines of psychology and psychiatry in the Soviet Union followed a unique path shaped by Marxist–Leninist ideology, intense theoretical debates, and distinctive institutional frameworks. As British historian Brian Simon observed, “Soviet psychology is dialectical materialism.”  In practice, this meant that Soviet theorists strove to ground the study of mind and behavior in Marxist philosophy and in materialist science (especially physiology). From the early post-revolutionary years through the 1980s, Soviet psychology and psychiatry evolved through periods of creative innovation, doctrinal control, and gradual integration with global science. This essay surveys that trajectory – outlining the major theoretical frameworks (from Pavlov’s reflex physiology to Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory), key figures and schools of thought, the growth of institutions and professional training, and the scientific debates that marked the development of these fields in the USSR. It will focus on scientific ideas and institutional evolution, avoiding political digressions, in order to highlight the distinctive scientific contributions and challenges of Soviet psychology and psychiatry.

Revolutionary Beginnings in the 1920s

The 1917 Bolshevik Revolution created both opportunities and challenges for psychology and psychiatry. The new Marxist government was keen to reshape all sciences along socialist lines. In the 1920s, a “cauldron of creativity” emerged in Russian psychology. Psychologists sought to develop a new science consistent with Marxist principles while building on pre-revolutionary Russian research. Before the revolution, Russia already had significant figures in behavioral science – for example, Ivan Pavlov, whose research on conditioned reflexes (for which he won a Nobel Prize in 1904) provided an objective, physiological model of learning, and Vladimir Bekhterev, a neurologist/psychiatrist who founded “psychoreflexology,” applying reflex principles to human behavior. These thinkers repudiated introspective “bourgeois” psychology and emphasized objectively observable behavior and brain function, anticipating elements of American behaviorism. After 1917, their work was looked to as a foundation for a materialist psychology.

At the same time, new voices entered the scene. Lev Vygotsky, a young psychologist, led a circle of researchers (including Alexander Luria and Alexei Leontiev) in proposing a radically new approach. Vygotsky believed psychology needed to account for the inseparable unity of mind, brain, and culture. He and his colleagues aimed to create a “cultural-historical” psychology, integrating Marx’s emphasis on socio-cultural development with the experimental methods of science. For example, Vygotsky introduced concepts such as the zone of proximal development to study how social interaction and mediation by language/tools shape a child’s mental growth.

This stood in contrast to purely reflexological approaches: whereas Pavlov and Bekhterev reduced psychological processes to physiological reflexes, Vygotsky argued that higher mental functions have social origins and qualitative uniqueness. Throughout the 1920s, a lively methodological debate raged: What should Soviet psychology be? Some, like Konstantin Kornilov (director of the Moscow Psychological Institute after 1923), advocated “reactology,” an objective study of reactions, pushing aside “bourgeois” introspection. Others, like Vygotsky, sought a synthesis that did not abandon the study of consciousness but redefined it in Marxist terms. This was part of a broader “crisis in psychology” acknowledged worldwide, but given a Marxist twist in the USSR.

In psychiatry, the early Soviet period also saw bold reforms. The new regime inherited a network of tsarist asylums and psychiatry rooted in European traditions. Soviet health commissar Nikolai Semashko and leading psychiatrists hoped to transform mental health care from mere custodial care to active treatment and prevention in the community. Outpatient clinics called “psychoneurological dispensaries” were established in major cities as early as the 1920s. The idea was that, under socialism, mental illness could be better managed by pairing psychiatric hospitals with community-based follow-up – emphasizing treatment, rehabilitation, and social support rather than life-long confinement. This ideal was encapsulated by the goal that “psychoneurological hospitals set before themselves the task of the treatment, not confinement, of patients.”

Clinicians like Vladimir Gilyarovsky advocated humane approaches and new therapies; indeed, during his tenure in the 1940s, Soviet psychiatry officially banned lobotomy as a treatment, reflecting a commitment to avoiding the most extreme and irreversible interventions  (notably, this prohibition came at a time when lobotomy was still used in the West). Soviet psychiatrists in the 1920s–30s also conducted research into classification of mental disorders – for instance, Pyotr Gannushkin developed an influential typology of personality disorders (psychopathies) in 1933 – and explored etiologies consistent with Marxist thought (emphasizing social factors in mental illness). Thus, even in its nascent phase, Soviet psychiatry strove to align with the broader social project of the revolution, aiming to scientifically address mental health in a progressive way.

The Stalin Era: Orthodoxy under Pavlov’s Banner (1930s–1950s)

By the 1930s, Soviet psychology and psychiatry came under tightened ideological control as Joseph Stalin’s regime imposed a stricter Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy on all fields. In this period, Ivan Pavlov’s theories of the conditioned reflex and the physiology of the brain (or “higher nervous activity”) were elevated to near-official doctrine in behavioral science. Pavlov himself, although not a Marxist, was highly esteemed by the state as a model scientist whose work was free of “idealism.” The government generously supported his research laboratories  and, after Pavlov’s death in 1936, continued to champion his legacy. This culminated in the famous “Pavlovian session” of 1950 – a joint meeting of the USSR Academy of Sciences and Academy of Medical Sciences convened under Stalin’s auspices to “fight Western influences” in physiology. During this session, Pavlov’s devoted students denounced other eminent physiologists (like Leon Orbeli and *Pyotr Anokhin) for deviating from Pavlov’s teachings. The result was an enforced conformity: henceforth, all Soviet research on the brain, behavior, and by extension psychology was expected to adhere strictly to Pavlovian principles. This had a chilling effect on theoretical innovation and distanced Soviet physiological psychology from the international community.

The ideological pressures of the late 1930s and early 1950s meant that alternative perspectives were suppressed. The cultural-historical school founded by Vygotsky suffered under this atmosphere. In 1936, a Stalinist decree condemned “pedology” (the then-fashionable science of child development/testing) as a bourgeois pseudoscience, which indirectly cast suspicion on many psychological studies of children. Two years after Vygotsky’s death, his works were effectively banned from publication and discussion. As one historian notes, by the late 1930s the initially cosmopolitan outlook of Soviet psychology had yielded to “inward-looking paranoia,” with Vygotsky and Luria’s cross-cultural studies attacked on ideological grounds. For roughly twenty years (c. 1936–1956), Soviet students could not openly study Vygotsky’s theories; his seminal ideas on cognition and development lay dormant in Soviet academia even as they quietly circulated among a few and later garnered interest abroad.

Nonetheless, some scientific work continued and even flourished within the approved frameworks. Sergei Rubinstein, for example, published Foundations of General Psychology (1940), which became a standard Soviet textbook – carefully aligning psychological topics like perception, memory, and personality with Marxist dialectical materialism. In the field of neuropsychology, Alexander Luria managed to conduct important research during World War II: he led a clinic for brain-injured soldiers and developed pioneering rehabilitation methods that integrated psychology with neurophysiology. Luria’s work, while remarkable, had to be carefully presented in Pavlovian terms to be acceptable. Indeed, the war years somewhat eased ideological scrutiny as practical needs (selection of aircrew, treatment of head injuries, etc.) demanded empirical problem-solving. Psychology contributed to the war effort through studies of pilot stress, propaganda effects on morale, and the like, albeit always couched in materialist language.

In psychiatry, the Stalin era also enforced a rigid theoretical line. Mental illnesses were expected to be explained via Pavlov’s physiology – e.g. psychiatric symptoms were often described as results of “excitatory-inhibitory” imbalances in the cerebral cortex (a Pavlovian model). The official view denied Freudian or psychoanalytic ideas (those had been tolerated briefly in the 1920s but were eliminated by the 1930s as “bourgeois idealism”). Instead, Soviet psychiatry focused on descriptive diagnosis and somatic treatments within a Pavlovian framework. Still, psychiatrists did make some advances: the 1930s saw expansions in the mental healthcare system, and continuing research on disorders like schizophrenia and epilepsy.

The All-Union Institute of Psychiatry was established in Moscow in 1944 as part of the new USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, affirming the state’s commitment to psychiatric science. Under its first director, Vasily Gilyarovsky, this institute became the leading center for clinical research and training, and as noted, it stood for humane values (Gilyarovsky not only banned psychosurgery but also promoted modern treatments and wrote an influential Theory of Hallucinations ). By 1952, the institute began organizing All-Union Psychiatric Congresses every five years to foster exchange among Soviet psychiatrists. Thus, even under tight ideological control, the institutional infrastructure for psychiatry and psychology was being built up – albeit with Soviet science operating largely in isolation from Western developments by the end of Stalin’s reign.

The Post-Stalin Thaw and Renewed Innovation (1953–1960s)

Stalin’s death in 1953 and the subsequent “Thaw” under Nikita Khrushchev brought a somewhat more liberal climate to Soviet science. In psychology, this meant a gradual relaxation of the strict Pavlovian orthodoxy and a renaissance of previously suppressed ideas. One of the first signs of change was the rehabilitation of Vygotsky’s legacy. In 1956, a collection of Vygotsky’s major texts was published, the first such publication in two decades. His work on cognitive development and educational psychology started to re-enter the curriculum, and his former students (Luria, Leontiev, etc.) were able to more openly build upon his theories. Leontiev developed Activity Theory, a framework that reconceived psychology as the study of object-oriented, socially mediated activity rather than isolated mental processes.

This approach, still avowedly Marxist, became highly influential; by focusing on how humans collectively interact with their environment, it bridged between pure behaviorism and a psychology of consciousness, and it aligned well with Marx’s emphasis on labor and social relations. By the 1960s, Activity Theory and cultural-historical psychology formed a dominant school in Soviet psychology, often called the Vygotsky–Leontiev–Luria tradition. It offered a distinctly Soviet paradigm that nevertheless addressed questions similar to those in the West (development, learning, motivation), thus contributing a new perspective to global psychology.

Meanwhile, the late 1950s brought a “psychopharmacological revolution” to psychiatry that transformed practice and theory. The introduction of the antipsychotic drug Chlorpromazine (known in the USSR as Aminazine) in 1954 was a watershed. Soviet psychiatrists eagerly embraced this new medication, which dramatically calmed psychotic patients and reduced hallucinations. Beyond its therapeutic value, Aminazine also had ideological significance: it allowed Soviet clinicians to challenge the old Pavlovian dogma that had dominated psychiatry in the Stalin years. For example, if schizophrenia could be managed with a chemical agent, this suggested biochemical imbalance theories, moving away from purely Pavlovian reflex models. Indeed, as one historian notes, demonstrating enthusiasm for psychopharmacology became a way for Soviet psychiatrists to signal their commitment to de-Stalinization and scientific progress.

The mid-1950s also saw a push to revitalize the earlier ideal of community-based care. With effective drugs in hand, Soviet authorities hoped they could more rapidly discharge patients from hospitals and treat them through outpatient neuropsychiatric dispensaries. Plans were made to expand the network of dispensaries and increase psychiatric beds to alleviate overcrowding. By 1960, the USSR had 157 psychoneurological dispensaries (up from 56 in 1940) serving as first-line mental health clinics in cities. Although this did not lead to Western-style “deinstitutionalization” (Soviet hospitals also kept growing, see below), it showed a genuine effort to incorporate modern treatments and ambulatory care into Soviet psychiatry.

Institutionally, the post-Stalin era was marked by growth and professionalization. Psychology, which had sometimes been an appendage to philosophy or education departments, achieved greater autonomy. A milestone was the establishment of the Faculty of Psychology at Moscow State University in 1966, with Alexei Leontiev as its first dean. This was the first dedicated psychology faculty at the USSR’s most prestigious university, signaling official recognition of psychology as an independent scientific field.

That same year, Moscow hosted the 18th International Congress of Psychology – an event that brought over 4,500 psychologists from around the world to meet Soviet researchers. The fact that the USSR hosted this major conference indicated a thaw in intellectual isolation and a willingness to showcase Soviet psychological science on the world stage. Soviet delegates also began attending international meetings more frequently in the 1960s, and journals like Voprosy psikholgii (“Problems of Psychology,” founded in 1955) started to publish summaries in English, bridging communication gaps.

Key figures of this era include: A. N. Leontiev, who systematized activity theory and trained a new generation of psychologists; A. R. Luria, who pursued cutting-edge research in neuropsychology (publishing works on brain function, bilingualism, and cognitive testing that gained international renown); Boris Teplov, who advanced the study of individual differences and abilities (within a permissible framework, emphasizing that talents had a physiological basis); and Nikolai Bernstein, a physiologist whose work on motor control and the concept of activity “levels” quietly challenged simplistic Pavlovian reflexology (Bernstein’s innovative ideas faced earlier political censure but were rehabilitated during the 1960s, illustrating the new openness to non-Pavlovian thinking ).

In psychiatry, leadership passed to figures like Andrei Snezhnevsky, who from the 1960s headed the Moscow Institute of Psychiatry. Snezhnevsky’s school developed a particular Soviet theory of schizophrenia, positing the existence of slow-progressing (“sluggish”) forms of the illness that might not be evident to lay observers. This broad diagnostic concept was controversial abroad, but within the USSR it became influential in research and practice, shaping epidemiological studies and treatment approaches. Importantly, the 1960s also brought an expansion of psychiatric training programs and research into new treatments (e.g. the Soviet Union developed its own psychopharmaceuticals and did studies on therapy combinations, though psychotherapy as practiced in the West remained limited).

Overall, the 1950s–60s were a period of renewed creativity. Soviet psychologists combined Marxist theory with empirical research in novel ways, contributing insights in developmental psychology (e.g. language and thought in children), educational psychology (designing socialist pedagogy methods), and even engineering psychology (applying psychology to ergonomics, aviation, and the nascent space program). Indeed, as the USSR entered the Space Age, psychologists were tasked with selecting and training cosmonauts, devising tests for “neuropsychological resistance” to stress and isolation in space. This led to a substantial program in aerospace human-factors research by the late 1960s, a field in which Soviet experts made valuable contributions alongside their American counterparts. In sum, during the Thaw the Soviet scientific community reclaimed some of its earlier diversity of thought and engaged with global trends, all while maintaining an officially materialist, dialectical framework.

Consolidation and Global Influence in the 1970s–1980s

By the 1970s, Soviet psychology and psychiatry had matured into well-established fields with large networks of institutions, scholars, and practitioners. The ideological line had also stabilized: Marxist dialectical materialism was still the required philosophical foundation, but within that broad mandate, researchers found room to pursue a variety of topics. Psychology in the USSR at this time was characterized by a few dominant schools of thought. The Pavlovian reflexology tradition persisted mainly in physiological and comparative psychology research (e.g. studies of learning and memory in animals, and human behavior under stress), often termed psychophysiology. The cultural-historical/activity theory tradition, descending from Vygotsky and Leontiev, was predominant in human psychological studies – from child development to work psychology. This tradition emphasized the role of social context and purposeful activity in shaping the mind, distinguishing Soviet theoretical work from many Western approaches. By focusing on how consciousness is active and context-bound, the Soviet approach provided a counterpoint to Western cognitive theories that treated the mind as an information processor. Over time, Soviet writings on topics like the development of reasoning, the psychology of play, memory strategies, and concept formation garnered increasing interest abroad, especially as more translations became available in the 1970s and 1980s. In particular, Luria’s books (e.g. The Working Brain, 1973, and case studies like The Man with a Shattered World) and Vygotsky’s works (finally fully published in Russian in the late 1970s and extensively translated) became part of the international canon of psychology, influencing cognitive science and education worldwide.

The institutional structure supporting Soviet psychology reached its height in these decades. Dozens of universities across the USSR had departments of psychology (Moscow, Leningrad, Kyiv, Tbilisi, and others produced large numbers of psychologists with advanced degrees). The USSR Academy of Pedagogical Sciences ran institutes devoted to educational psychology, developmental psychology, and defectology (special education for children with disabilities), reflecting the importance placed on scientifically informed pedagogy. In 1971, the USSR Academy of Sciences established its own Institute of Psychology in Moscow, headed by Boris Lomov, to further fundamental research in areas like cognitive processes, social psychology, and the history of psychology. Scholarly journals proliferated: Psikhologicheskii Zhurnal (“Psychology Journal”) was launched in 1980 as a new flagship periodical for theoretical and experimental work , and existing journals saw increased circulation. The Russian Psychological Society, originally founded in 1885, was revived and by the 1980s was coordinating conferences and publications, helping to professionalize the community of psychologists.

Soviet psychiatry in the 1970s–80s was similarly expansive. The mental health system had grown into one of the largest in the world, with a vast network of psychiatric hospitals and outpatient clinics serving the populace. By the mid-1970s the USSR had over 300,000 psychiatric beds (312,600 in 1975)  – a number that would swell to nearly 350,000 by 1990. This continued expansion stood in contrast to trends in many Western countries, where deinstitutionalization was reducing hospital populations. Historian David Joravsky pointed out the irony of this divergence: just as other nations “figured out a better solution” than the old asylums, the Soviet Union doubled down on building large psychiatric hospitals. The reasons were partly systemic – Soviet central planning rewarded increases in capacity, and health ministries equated more beds with progress – and partly ideological, as the psychiatric profession in the USSR had long prided itself on transforming the old tsarist asylums into modern, treatment-oriented hospitals. In practice, the ideal of community care was never fully realized; although dispensaries existed and provided important services (follow-up for patients on medications, preventive check-ups, etc.), hospital-centric care remained dominant. Almost all Soviet psychiatrists worked in state hospitals or polyclinics, and the career path was through medical school and specialization in psychiatry (by 1989, the USSR had over 37,000 psychiatrists trained under its system). This highly centralized, state-run system did ensure that basic psychiatric services (however limited) were available even in remote regions of the union. It also facilitated large-scale research: Soviet psychiatrists could conduct longitudinal studies with thousands of patients, and they compiled extensive statistics on mental illness rates, treatment outcomes, etc., feeding into their unique diagnostic concepts.

One notable “unique trajectory” in Soviet psychiatry was the local conception of schizophrenia mentioned earlier. The Moscow School under Snezhnevsky argued that schizophrenia could manifest in mild, protracted forms (the notorious “sluggish schizophrenia”). While this idea later became controversial (especially when Western critics charged it enabled political abuse – a topic beyond our scope here), within Soviet scientific circles it spurred genuine research into the early detection and course of psychotic disorders. Soviet psychiatrists published numerous studies on subclinical symptoms, the prodromal phase of schizophrenia, and the differentiation between schizophrenia and mood disorders, contributing to the understanding of psychiatric nosology from their vantage point. Additionally, Soviet medicine made strides in areas like addiction psychiatry (developing aversion therapies and occupying a leading role in alcoholism treatment research) and child psychiatry (where they integrated pediatric neurology and psychology to address developmental disorders). Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Soviet specialists maintained some dialogue with international science – participating in World Health Organization projects and exchanging findings at conferences – but the flow of influence was selective. They adopted Western advances that fit their framework (for instance, new psychotropic drugs: by the 1970s the USSR was producing its own versions of antidepressants and benzodiazepines), yet remained somewhat insular in theoretical orientation.

By the 1980s, the distinctiveness of the Soviet approach was clear. Soviet psychology had contributed enduring theories such as cultural-historical activity theory, which emphasized that human psychology is fundamentally shaped by cultural context and collective activity – an insight now widely recognized in fields like educational psychology and cognitive anthropology. It had also fostered renowned scientists like Pavlov (whose conditioning theory became foundational to behavior therapy and learning theory worldwide) and Vygotsky (now hailed as a pioneer of developmental science). Soviet psychiatry, for its part, had built one of the most comprehensive public mental health systems, accumulated rich clinical data, and achieved certain forward-looking policies (like the early rejection of lobotomy and the integration of psychiatry with general healthcare). At the same time, Soviet researchers faced limitations: they operated under ideological constraints that sometimes stifled open debate, and their relative isolation meant they were late to incorporate some Western innovations (for example, humanistic psychology or family therapy found little footing in the USSR).

Conclusion

The evolution of psychology and psychiatry in the Soviet Union from the 1920s through the 1980s represents a fascinating interplay between ideology, science, and institutional dynamics. The Soviet leadership’s insistence on a Marxist–materialist foundation gave these fields a unique theoretical flavor – one that yielded original frameworks like Pavlov’s reflex theory and Vygotsky’s cultural-historical approach, both significant contributions to global knowledge. Over the decades, Soviet scholars engaged in passionate scientific debates: How to reconcile objective physiology with the subjective mind? How to merge Marxist social theory with experimental psychology? These debates produced creative syntheses, as seen in activity theory and in Soviet neuropsychology’s blend of laboratory and field study. Institutionally, the USSR built an extensive apparatus for mental science – from research institutes and academic departments to a nationwide mental health service – which facilitated large-scale studies and the training of thousands of professionals. The trajectory was not linear: periods of pluralism and innovation (the 1920s, the post-1953 thaw) alternated with periods of enforced orthodoxy (the Stalin era). Yet even within constraints, Soviet practitioners found ways to advance their disciplines, whether by reframing concepts in acceptable terms or by focusing on practical applications (such as wartime psychology or pharmacological treatment).

Crucially, Soviet psychology and psychiatry developed in dialogue – sometimes muted, sometimes vibrant – with international science. In the early years, they drew on European traditions (from Wundt and Freud to Kraepelin) but endeavored to create a new, socialist science of mind. Mid-century isolation impeded exchange, but by the 1970s–80s Soviet ideas like the zone of proximal development and activity theory were reaching Western audiences, while Soviet clinicians were adopting global best practices in psychopharmacology. The result was a partial convergence by the late Soviet period: Soviet researchers attended conferences and published in international journals, contributing to and learning from worldwide psychological science. Still, the Soviet experience remained distinctive in its holistic, philosophical approach to psychology and its state-centralized model of psychiatric care. This legacy would continue to influence post-Soviet psychology and psychiatry, even as the collapse of the USSR in 1991 removed the ideological strictures and opened the doors fully to global integration.

In summary, the scientific and institutional development of psychology and psychiatry in the Soviet Union was marked by a constant balancing act between adherence to official doctrine and pursuit of empirical knowledge. Out of that tension emerged significant schools of thought – the Pavlovian and Vygotskian chief among them – and a cohort of eminent figures who left an imprint on their fields. The Soviet Union’s psychologists and psychiatrists, working under unique conditions, expanded our understanding of conditioning, brain function, cognitive development, and community mental health. Their journey illustrates how science can evolve along different paths in different social systems, contributing diverse insights to the global quest to understand and heal the human mind.