There is nothing more precious in the world than the bonds that unite people.
A. de Saint-Exupéry. “Wind, Sand and Stars”
The most ancient art in human culture is the art of communication. When there was no theater, no painting, no music, there was communication. From it all the arts were born.
D. Granin. "Zubr"
Introduction
It's hard for the younger generation of psychologists to imagine that just a few decades ago, books on the psychology of communication were practically nonexistent, save for a small number of popular publications. This was especially noticeable against the backdrop of the unflagging interest of both professional psychologists and ordinary people in the mysteries of the human soul, and perhaps most importantly in the issues of human communication and the secrets of mutual understanding. What F.I. Tyutchev said in the first half of the 19th century, and in our time of almost limitless communication opportunities—albeit purely technical ones—still excites both the experienced elder and the young man entering adulthood:
How can a heart expression find?
How should another know your mind?
Will he discern what quickens you?
A thought once uttered is untrue.
In recent years, the situation has changed, posing an equally difficult question for the reader: which publication should I choose? It would be naive to expect that there is a book (or books) that contains answers (and along with them, advice) to the questions that arise in every sensible person faced with the need to “learn to communicate”. Moreover, psychological science concerns an area of human existence in which there are no ready-made recipes—people must seek them out themselves, make mistakes and then seek them out again, learn from their own and others' mistakes. Therefore, it is understandable that they are in dire need of guidance based not so much on common sense as on scientific data. W. James drew attention to this peculiarity of psychology in his book, “Conversations with Teachers on Psychology”. Addressing American educators, he said: “... you are deeply, very deeply mistaken if you think that from psychology, that is, from the science of the laws of mental life, it is possible to derive specific programs, plans, or methods of teaching directly for school use. Psychology is a science, and teaching is an art; and science never directly produces art” (italics added—M.S.) (James, 1998, p. 17). And then, W. James formulates a general proposition equally applicable to all areas of social practice: “Science merely indicates the limits within which the rules of art are applicable, and the laws which those practicing this art must not transgress. How to proceed in each individual case without going beyond these limits is entirely left to the individual's discretion” (James, 1998, pp. 17-18). If we examine the issues of communication psychology through the prism of the role assigned to scientific psychology by James, we cannot help but acknowledge that the blurring of permissible boundaries remains a problem felt by those who, quite rightly, rely on the assistance of psychology and psychologists.
The book discussed below contains a considerable amount of useful and reliable general information. Published under the editorship of D.A. Leontiev in the year of the 90th anniversary of the birth of Alexei Alekseevich Leontiev (1936-2004), renowned for his work in philology, psychology, pedagogy, and related fields, this book aims to introduce one aspect of his scientific legacy.
“Psychology of Communication” brings together A.A. Leontiev's scientific works under one cover. As its title suggests, they are united by the common theme of communication, and each work deserves special attention. While all the works are devoted to a single problem, the issues raised are so diverse that there is no doubt about the book's potential for a wide range of interested readers. Some sections of the book, such as those dealing with pedagogical communication, are applied in nature, which, however, does not mean they are insufficiently reliable.
At the same time, it should be emphasized that, with the progressive development of practical psychology, communication issues are taking on a new meaning, making a return to theoretical sources not only desirable but absolutely necessary. Without proper scientific reflection, psychological practices (techniques and technologies) that promise help risk turning into their opposite.
Written in academic language, this publication is intended for readers prepared not for a light intellectual stroll through a textbook, but for the serious, demanding work of familiarizing themselves with the obtained scientific data, which is often controversial. However, although classified as an educational publication, its content, replete with references to fundamental works in psychology and philosophy, can without exaggeration be considered scholarly.
Textbook on the psychology of communication
The main focus of the collection under review is A.A. Leontiev's work "Psychology of Communication," which gives the book its title.
This is the sixth edition; the first dates back to 1974: it was published by Tartu State University (Department of Logic and Psychology) as a textbook for psychology students. Even by today's standards, the print run is modest—only 750 copies. A.A. Leontiev specified that the textbook was a course of lectures given to students at Tartu State University in the fall of 1973. The book contains not only theoretical but also empirical material, as well as a summary of practical experience in applied areas of communication psychology.
There were significantly fewer psychologists at the time, and even fewer studying communication, so there was little hope of a readership boom. However, the reality exceeded expectations. In softcover form, with the black-and-white logo of the University of Tartu as the cover's decorative element, and printed using a rotary press on poor-quality paper, this small edition quickly became a rarity.
As stated in the “Preface” to the second edition, “this was the first monograph in Russian on the psychology of communication” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 6).
A year later, in 1975, A.A. Leontiev defended his doctoral dissertation on “The Psychology of Verbal Communication”. According to D.A. Leontiev and A.A. Leontieva (Leontiev, Leontieva, 1997), many denied A.A. Leontiev, a doctor of philosophical sciences, the right to express opinions on psychological issues, which led A.A. Leontiev to defend his doctoral dissertation in psychology. In his doctoral dissertation, A.A. Leontiev wrote: “The ultimate goal of the work is to create a working concept of the psychology of communication that could form the basis for applied communication research” (Leontiev, 1975, p. 38). The phrase “working concept” hints at the prospects for future research.
Without attempting a comprehensive analysis of “The Psychology of Communication”, as it would be inappropriate for a review, we will limit ourselves to outlining some of its key points. This substantive presentation is preceded by a discussion of the place of the psychology of communication within the system of psychological knowledge. A.A. Leontiev draws attention to a scientific fact of great theoretical importance: works on the psychology of communication often either did not address psychological issues per se and approached communication from a linguistic perspective, or they substituted the psychology of communication with the psychology of relationships, social management, and so on. A.A. Leontiev defines the psychology of communication as "a section of general psychology whose subject is the psychological specificity of communication processes, considered from the perspective of the relationship between the individual and society" (Leontiev, 2026, p. 13).
He identifies the main psychological problems of communication:
• psychological functions of communication,
• the formation and functioning of mechanisms and means of communication,
• the relationship of communication with other aspects of human mental life.
Furthermore, the book lists those practical areas that require a clear definition of their psychological foundations: the psychology of the media, advertising, public speaking, foreign language teaching, and others. This list could be continued.
Speech communication is at the center of all research in the psychology of communication. Because it is in verbal communication that the general psychological patterns of communication manifest themselves in their most characteristic, naked, and accessible form for research, they were chosen by the author as the primary subject of analysis. The author's previous research in psycholinguistics contributed greatly to the emergence of the psychology of verbal communication as a distinct field. It is worth recalling that A.A. Leontiev is rightfully considered the founder of psycholinguistics in our country. His dissertation on "Theoretical Problems of Psycholinguistic Modeling of Speech Activity" for the degree of Doctor of Philology was defended in 1968 (Leontiev, 1968). Moreover, already in his doctoral dissertation, A.A. Leontiev interpreted the theory of speech activity "as part of the general science of man" (Leontiev, 1968, p. 29).
Reading a book on the psychology of communication written half a century ago inevitably prompts reflection on the changes that have occurred in science, on "what has become of us," and whether it is possible to speak of a significant enrichment of scientific knowledge. It must be acknowledged that while some problems posed by A.A. Leontiev have attracted the attention of researchers, most likely due to the changed social situation in science, which has turned its attention to practice—for example, the study of nonverbal communication—others, such as the pathology of communication, still await their theoretical substantiation. The appeal addressed to all psychologists engaged in the study of communication resonates like a scientific testament—a reminder that a “foremost professional duty” is “to navigate freely across the entire range of theoretical and experimental research on communication conducted both in our country and abroad” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 222). A.A. Leontiev himself embodied precisely this kind of reverent attitude toward Science—whether in psychology, linguistics, or pedagogy.
Can communication be considered an activity?
The publication “Activity and Communication” is substantively related to the work “Psychology of Communication”. While in the book just reviewed, A.A. Leontiev writes of his affiliation with A.N. Leontiev's school of thought, the published article provides clear evidence of this. Its controversial nature is noteworthy: the author poses questions regarding the relationship between communication and activity, but, while offering his own perspective on the problem, does not exclude a different approach to its solution. The article “Activity and Communication” first appeared in the journal "Voprosy Filosofii" (Leontiev, 1979), which speaks to another direction in A.A. Leontiev's scientific research and, at the same time, his desire to draw the attention of philosophers to psychological problems. However, those familiar with A.A. Leontiev's rich legacy have no doubt about the breadth and depth of his professional interests, which led to his interest in questions of methodology and the philosophy of science. Addressing the category of activity as something that transcends psychology and connects its conceptual system with that of other social sciences allows us to move from theoretical analysis to the level of concrete research—this is the essence of the category of activity in the general psychological theory of activity.
It can be assumed that A.A. Leontiev also found this article particularly significant: its clear structure and rigorous language subtly invite serious discussion, leaving no room for pseudo-scientific speculation. This explains our close attention to this publication. It was in this article that the question of types of communication was discussed and the problem of the subject of communication was posed. A.A. Leontiev distinguishes two main types of communication: object-oriented, that is, carried out in joint non-communicative activity, and the opposite, “pure” communication, not included in non-communicative activity. The second type can have two situations: socially oriented communication (for example, public speaking) and personally oriented communication.
Returning to the question posed at the beginning of the article: can communication be considered an activity? A.A. Leontiev gives the following answer: “Of course it can. Can it function not as an activity, but as one of its structural components within another activity? Yes, undoubtedly, and in this it is no different from other types of activity. Are there real grounds for denying the activity-based nature of communication? If there are, we do not find them in the works of critics of the idea of communication as an activity” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 245).
Published in Voprosy Filosofii, A.A. Leontiev's article was intended by the editors to initiate a discussion on the problems of methodology and the philosophy of scientific knowledge. Indeed, a little over six months later, B.F. Lomov published a response article. However, his presentation, although based on A.A. Leontiev's statement on the relationship between communication and activity, addressed more general issues of the categorical apparatus of psychology. He formulated the question differently: can psychology develop on the basis of a single category, or does it “develop on the basis of a system of categories” (Lomov, 1979, p. 34). At the end of the article, B.F. Lomov concludes: “The question of a system of categories is particularly acute. … The categories of activity and communication do not yet fully reveal the social existence of the individual. It is necessary to consider such categories as behavior, lifestyle, needs, and a number of others” (Lomov, 1979, p. 47).
The discussion did not continue, which does not preclude the consideration of A.A. Leontiev's article “Activity and Communication” as extending beyond the narrow confines of psychology and oriented toward the search for philosophical foundations of psychological knowledge, which, as the entire history of the development of psychological knowledge has convincingly demonstrated, can also be diverse.
On types of communication
The subsequent materials in A.A. Leontiev's collection of works address specific studies of types of communication.
Even in his doctoral dissertation, A.A. Leontiev wrote about a “psychological model of speech influence” (Leontiev, 1975, p. 36), which forms the basis of research on the psychology of public speaking and the psychology of mass communication.
The section “Lecture Communication”, as the author himself writes, is an excerpt from a brochure for lecturers, “Lecture as Communication”. Materials on such topics are clearly practice-oriented, and readers will likely find advice relevant to their teaching work. For example, the recommendation to structure lecture communication in a way that embraces both identification and empathy is very helpful. Behind such recommendations, the author's central idea of viewing a lecture primarily as communication is invisibly present. Two more articles – “Communication in Mass Media” and “Television Art through the Eyes of a Psychologist” – address issues of social communication. A.A. Leontiev's defining principle in analyzing the language of mass communication is the determinacy of the linguistic characteristics of mass communication's impact on its socio-psychological and psycholinguistic features. A.A. Leontiev devotes special attention to television as a unifying force: on the one hand, it serves as a mass medium, and on the other, as an art form.
Theater, music, painting, and literature are different forms of art that are associated with different aspects of the personality. According to A.A. Leontiev, the specificity of cinema lies in the fact that “it ensures the dynamics of meaning formation” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 343), its purpose being “to engage and compel participation in the process of artistic communication... not to remain... an internally alienated viewer” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 343). But is this true of television? The author emphasizes that television perception possesses a number of specific characteristics that complicate its competition with other art forms. This suggests an analysis of the state of perception of contemporary cinema, which has undergone significant changes compared to both television art of 50 years ago and cinema. How should home theaters be categorized in this situation?
Artistic communication, or communication through art
The discussion of art does not end with television art. A.A. Leontiev examines the activity of artistic perception from the perspective of the psychology of communication, and “the only objective path to studying the psychological specificity of art is an analysis of the process of artistic communication” (italics added – M.S.) (Leontiev, 2026, p. 332). An essential condition of artistic communication, A.A. Leontiev notes, is that the artist communicates to the viewer, reader, or listener something that allows them “to rise above themselves, to receive more from participation in artistic communication than they had before. ... art is ... a means of developing ... the personality” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 328).
Like any communication, artistic communication uses certain means; In its developed form, it is mediated by quasi-objects that possess specific characteristics conditioned by the fact that they act as bearers of personal meaning: through artistic communication, the actualization and development of the personality is realized, primarily its motivational, emotional-volitional, and ethical aspects. A.A. Leontiev introduces the concept of quasi-objects of art, which he understands as those elements of artistic communication that carry an independent functional load: this can be a complete artistic message (Michelangelo's David or Tchaikovsky's First Concerto) or an aesthetically significant component of such a message. The differences between quasi-objects of various art forms consist in their different relationships with objects. And thus, A.A. Leontiev's epistemological task of separating the objective from the quasi-objective becomes clear. Some quasi-objects exist only as objects, for example, architecture. Other quasi-objects are created within the framework of art and do not exist outside of it, for example, the unit of perception in cinema – the film image. The third type of quasi-object is one that is ideal even outside of art—this occurs in poetry, where its sensory material is linguistic elements already incorporated into cognition and communication. “The fundamental problem of art perception” according to A.A. Leontiev, “is not the nomenclature of its quasi-objects, but the patterns of their organization into an artistic whole” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 324). In relation to poetry, this allows us to speak not of the problem of “poetic language”, but of the problem of “poetic speech”. A.A. Leontiev writes not about the technique of art, but about the technique of art perception, since techniques themselves are not carriers of personal meanings.
Referring to L.S. Vygotsky's notion of art as a “social technique of feelings” A.A. Leontiev calls art “a kind of 'testing ground' where people learn to be human” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 335). The content of art is those social relations that “are not reflected in the frozen forms of language, in conceptual form” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 286), but are experienced as one's own, intimate, in the subjective psychological form of personal meaning (Leontiev, 2026, p. 287).
The perception of art is not a passive process, and the perceiver simultaneously creates it. Art can be dead if we do not know the psychological key to it, if we do not carry out the specific activity of communicating through art: “Like any communication, communication through art must be specifically taught” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 289). Not all works of art are intended for every reader, viewer, listener, etc.; some works possess varying degrees of difficulty, but A.A. Leontiev places high demands on true artistic expression. He writes: “But every truly significant work is significant in that it is potentially accessible to any reader, viewer, or listener, provided they have mastered the fundamentals of the language of a given art” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 303).
This understanding of art was already outlined in the 1973 article “Poetic Language as a Method of Communication through Art” (Leontiev, 1973), published in the journal “Questions of Literature” which allows us to see how holistic and comprehensive his study of communication was throughout the various periods of A.A. Leontiev's scholarly work.
School atmosphere
Perhaps the main application of the general theory of communication has been the study of pedagogical communication. While A.A. Leontiev's book “Psychology of Communication” has been reprinted numerous times, the small publication “Pedagogical Communication” has been less fortunate in this regard. The first edition was published in 1979: the brochure was published in the popular Soviet-era series “Pedagogy and Psychology” by Znanie Publishing House. A second, revised edition was published almost 20 years later, and an expanded interview given by A.A. Leontiev to M.K. Kabardov was published in 1997. In this form, “Pedagogical Communication” is included in the book under review.
Despite the widespread use of the term “pedagogical communication”, A.A. Leontiev, in order to prevent misinterpretations, specifically defines it: “Pedagogical communication is the professional communication between a teacher and students, either in class or outside of it (in the learning and education processes), which has specific pedagogical functions and is aimed (if complete and optimal) at creating a favorable psychological climate, as well as at other types of psychological optimization of educational activities and relationships between the teacher and students and within the student body” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 351). A.A. Leontiev's commentary on the need for special training programs in pedagogical communication remains relevant. At the same time, Leontiev does not hide his skepticism about limiting pedagogical communication to technology: “... you cannot teach a person the techniques of pedagogical communication if they don't feel like a teacher, if they... don't love children, don't love the profession” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 471). It's hard to disagree with the author: “... the humaneness of communication with a child is the essence of pedagogical communication” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 469). This is precisely how true teachers, for whom school is a calling, not just a profession, understood the role of a teacher in school. The founder of the Moscow gymnasium in the Southwest, who worked at the school for almost 70 years in total, said: “The most important thing in school is the humanism of relationships” (Zavelsky, 2025, p. 52).
Another thing is that many pedagogical mistakes, which often stem not "from poverty but from the generosity of the soul," can and should be avoided. The Pygmalion effect described in the book still occurs in almost every classroom, and extensive teaching experience doesn't always help, if not eliminate, a biased attitude toward students, then at least acknowledge it. This is precisely the case when experience ceases to be a blessing, becomes a hindrance, and, having become the experience of prejudice, transforms from something positive into its opposite. This doesn't negate the importance of teachers having an understanding of pedagogical communication methods; rather, it further emphasizes their vital necessity.
The book contains a short paragraph, “How Our Word Will Resonate”, which explains how A.A. Leontiev's professional interest in pedagogical communication emerged and subsequently took shape. It grew out of research in psycholinguistics in the 1960s: as an applied field, it is linked to teaching and education, and to the study of the relationship between the psychological characteristics of speech and its linguistic characteristics. A.A. Leontiev notes that psycholinguistic “microanalysis” of teachers' verbal communication is one area of research in pedagogical communication. However, emphasizing the relevance of addressing the mechanisms of verbal influence and developing subsequent practical recommendations, A.A. Leontiev concludes his book on pedagogical communication with the words: “... the purpose of teaching pedagogical communication is not in itself—it is not a panacea for all pedagogical woes” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 416). It is merely “a tool for creating an atmosphere of equality, fairness, and sensitivity that should reign in teachers' relationships with the class” (ibid.). And how fortunate those children, regardless of their age and interest in particular school lessons, were to encounter such a teacher. A.A. Leontiev and Yu.V. Zavelsky both said the same thing: “... the character of any school is determined by its atmosphere, the air that fills the school building, the warmth and light it radiates—in a word, its spirit. This spirit, like the spirit of any home, is created by the people who live in it. It is expressed primarily by the relationships between them (both adults and children) in the rather complex educational process in which they participate. That is why relationships between people are the main asset of any school community, the most precious thing it has and which must be skillfully preserved” (Zavelsky, 2025, p. 53).
Interdisciplinary theory of human communication
The book concludes with an article by D.A. Leontiev and I.B. Khanina, “On the Problem of Communication in A.A. Leontiev's Works” (2011, № 1), timed to coincide with A.A. Leontiev's 75th birthday and published in the journal “Cultural-Historical Psychology” (Kulturno-Historical Psychology). The very title of the article, “On the Question...”, hints at the incompleteness of their research.
Fifteen years ago, the authors wrote that A.A. Leontiev's communication theory in its entirety had not been the subject of a dedicated analysis. This journal publication, followed by others, was intended to fill this gap. Success in solving this problem is not measured by the number of publications and oral presentations on a given topic, but rather presupposes the active use of A.A. Leontiev's ideas as a scientific foundation for new research. However, the latter will be greatly facilitated by reflecting on the scientific path traversed by A.A. Leontiev and his students. It is from this perspective that D.A. Leontiev and I.B. Khanina's article can be viewed – as a prologue to future research in the field of communication psychology.
The authors quite rightly raise the question of the system-forming principle that, on the one hand, is present in all of A.A. Leontiev's works, and, on the other, allows them to be viewed not as separate, loosely related studies, but as a unified whole, reflecting the interests of a philologist, psychologist, and educator. This principle is represented by the “multilevel interdisciplinary theory of human communication” (Leontiev, 2026, p. 477), first presented in the book “Psychology of Communication” in 1974. Considering A.A. Leontiev's theory of communication as interdisciplinary, firstly, demonstrates the productivity of interdisciplinary research for psychology, as it meets contemporary demands of social practice, and secondly, allows us to consider psychology as part of the humanities, using a specific example.
In their summary, D.A. Leontiev and I. B. Khanina also identify another possible direction for analyzing A.A. Leontiev's scientific legacy: studying his theory of communication through the prism of the ideas about the image of the world of A.N. Leontiev, E.Yu. Artemyeva, and S.D. Smirnov. This interweaving of A.A. Leontiev's scientific concepts into the fabric of diverse studies also serves as evidence of their interdisciplinary nature.
Conclusion
Who should read this book, why, and how?
Who? This is the question that arises when someone opens the book, familiarizes themselves with its contents, and flips through a few pages. Based on the overall impression of what they've read, it's quite difficult to define (limit) the circle of readers who will find information on the psychology of communication useful and necessary. One could take the opposite approach and set the task of finding specialists in psychology and related sciences who are not, to one degree or another, connected to the issue of communication. It must be acknowledged that the latter are few in number, since issues of communication psychology are reflected in various branches of psychology, and the relevant information precedes acquaintance with virtually any area of psychological knowledge, as well as psychological practice.
Why and how? The answers to these two questions directly depend on professional interests and inclinations, as well as current needs. It's possible that some will be satisfied with just reading individual chapters, while others, on the contrary, will be interested in searching for A.A. Leontiev's works on other topics.
A story about A.A. Leontiev's book would be incomplete if we stopped here and left out its author. Anyone who was fortunate enough to interact with Alexey Alexeevich Leontiev will surely remember his characteristically engaging manner, regardless of who he was talking to—a renowned scholar or a student, a close colleague or a casual listener. His smile, shining eyes, and calm, quiet speech set the tone for a confidential conversation, free from fuss and excessive politeness. This was a rare instance when the psychologist's work matched his actions: he never deviated from the "rules of communication" he wrote about in his books, yet he also taught us something very important, something that cannot always be expressed in words—humanity. And what kind of students we grown up to be depends only on us.