From the onset of psychological science two approaches to the biosocial problem confront: a) Blurring the boundaries between biology and culture, so that culture is considered only to determine specific ways in which biological basis reveals itself; b) Considering culture as a factor canceling biological determination of behavior. The first trend took shape in the Western psychological tradition in the era of social revolutions and confrontation between capitalist and socialist systems, and aimed to justify low social mobility against the background of the declaration of an “equal opportunity society”. The second trend was Marxist psychology, primarily, Russian psychology, which proclaimed the idea of creating a “new” human personality. In the era of globalization, the first trend continues with the search for a “universal” psychology, basing on the belief that the basics of human psyche is the same for all homo sapiens, i.e., biologically determined. This trend maintains a dominant position in the mainstream psychology and its value is not in doubt. However, absolutization of this approach is fraught with the risk of losing the path to the comprehension of human nature. The belief that human is something more than an animal permeates the history of human culture. The loss of this belief is fraught with the danger of degeneration of science into an ugly and dangerous ideology. The second trend in treating the biosocial problem has weakened in the post-Soviet period, because in Russian psychology theoretical developments in this area ceased. In the contemporary international psychology this trend is represented by schools, which are grounding on Russian developments of the Soviet period. Regrettably, contemporary Russian psychology is insufficiently incorporated into the international discourse on the biosocial problem. The issue of the “universal” psychology, discussed by Russian colleagues, is not sufficiently related with the logic of cultural-historical theory and Subjekt approach.