KEYWORDS: education; social education; sociocultural foundations of education in Russia; archetypal patterns; sociocultural modernization of education.

ABSTRACT: The paper characterizes sociocultural foundations of current social education. It analyzes a genesis of sociocultural dominant features in academic education and social education. Sociocultural prerequisites of modern social education are being discussed.

Current national policy aimed at an active “import substitution,” support for the domestic producers, sanctions’ resistance, a reliance on self-sufficiency and the nation’s own potential, – all these determine, among other things, the social education activity. In this respect, it is increasingly important for social education to be built on the Russian sociocultural foundations [1].

The Russian sociocultural foundations discourse proved to be a logical phenomenon, a logical chain link in the development of the Russian educational thought. It dates back to the perception of humanistic ideas of the Enlightenment (18th - early 19th centuries), then through the adoption of Western European values in education (the first half of the 19th century) and later towards understanding the necessity of their interrelationship with the specific traditions of the Russian school (since the second half of the 19th century). By synthesizing the views of educators in the aforementioned aspect, it is possible to suggest the following interpretation of the key definitions in question.

Universal social education values are primary moral and intellectual imperatives based on the identity of the human anthropological development, which are specifically revealing through various periods of history and somehow determining the genesis of social education in particular world nations.

The concept “national social education values” is understood as such an axiological orientation of social education content, forms and methods which is mediated by environmental, sociocultural and ethnographic dominants as well as by mentality and traditions that determine the key values of the Russian “super-ethnos” [3].

Educators from alternative schools of thought have defined a number of significant aspects including:

• Substantiation of universal or ethnic social education values as well as ways of their seamless interrelationship;
• •Determination of the initial principles which may serve as a basis of implementing “ethnic social education” and “a national school”;
• •Identification of social education selection criteria; substantiation of forms and technologies of their realization in accordance with the “Russian spirit” [10].

A specific sociocultural nature of the Russian civilization and its Eurasian geographical location have been traditionally used to determine the state’s crucial role in preserving Russia as an indivisible power. This led to the peculiarity of Russian Super ethno-social phenomenon, which was dominated by the idea of unification - the mystical unity of the Orthodox Christians, regardless of their title ethnicity. Such a status implied certain neglect and even alienation of national specifics including, among other things, social education. It also predetermined the reluctance to demonstrate any national specifics in fear to destroy or damage Russian identity [3].

In order to preserve state integrity and prevent centrifugal tendencies, the prevailing effort was aimed at the unified Russian school where the ethnic identification was ensured by two key foundations: school teaching in Russian and Bible (or Orthodox theology) studies. That is why the task of setting up ethnic comprehensive schools (such as Chuvash, Mari or Tatar) was not part of the priority list of the government. Moreover, there was no intention to standardize ethnic educational traditions. Nor was it officially allowed to develop an ethnic (independent of the Ministry) educational component, the presence of which is one of the distinguishing features of a mature social community.

As a result, however, there was a distinctly supranational policy that did not allow the existence of various ethnic educational subcultures and failed to create the Russian national school, the latter was never perceived as an important state value. This undoubtedly hampered the development of theoretical axiology in regard to the aforementioned problems [6].

The key sociocultural foundations of the Russian social education are determined by its archetype. The development of the core of the Russian educational civilization was affected by three dominant factors: traditions of the Slavic folk education, Orthodox educational determinants and, finally, by a foreign West European influence, primarily of the Swedish, German, and later on, English and American nature.

The impact on the archetype has not been flat and even but instead, it was multilevel and hierarchical in nature. The widest part, the prominent foundation of the Russian pedagogy is the Slavic educational tradition. Above it is the Orthodox pedagogy that started the archetype of the Russian pedagogical civilization. The Swedish, Austrian and German influence contributed to the creation of the Russian state system of education. Finally and more recently, both –English and American influence have largely impacted the very archetype of the practices of the social education, though only at certain time periods in the development of the Russian school and pedagogy [3].

Thus, the three archetypes – Slavic, Orthodox and West European civilizations – are interwoven in the history of the Russian education as well as in its present-day practices. Their  concurrent presence predetermines the complex, polyphonic and variable character of sociocultural development in the Russian social education during different periods of its development.

The existing archetypical synthesis presents a contradictory situation. It is the special attitude to the rural school (originating from the Slavic world) as the treasurer of the Russian civilization social code, traditionally opposed to the “supranational” urban school.

It also includes the Orthodox-based supremacy of faith over knowledge, social education over learning, authoritarian nature of pedagogical interventions, orientation towards passive rather than active character of educational efforts, as well as collective (group-based) rather than individual forms of educational practice. The Orthodoxy has also influenced the invariably messianic emphasis that the Soviet-Russian educational systems are of the most advanced nature; and they are doggedly (in spite of realities) regarded as “the world best”.

At the same time we observe the antipodal archetypal (derived from the German theory of education) emphasis on the knowledge-based nature of educational activities, which stays in strong opposition to the current educational paradigm of the socialization-oriented social education [3].

On the whole, the archetype of the Russian educational institution is seen as an accessible, free of charge public “school of learning” with the class and lesson system, rather strict discipline, authoritarian teachers and solid basis of comprehensive knowledge.

There are two factors that serve as authenticity proofs of the aforementioned archetype.

1. All innovations are considered to be in opposition to this archetype. An innovative school is a flexible and subject-oriented educational institution employing a wide variety of individual approaches and variable programs [2]. It has a democratic and friendly atmosphere, uses active teaching methods, and Information technology and paid educational services. Consequently, in every aspect, an innovative school is a striking contrast to the opposing archetype.
2. After every new cycle of reforms a Russian school would usually return to the aforementioned school archetype, especially illustrative it was in the 1930s.

Another major set of archetypal concepts is the Russian teachers’ pedagogical mindset. Here again, the Orthodox influence and a wider range of geopolitical and sociocultural civilization factors lead to a specific scope of archetypal concepts. They include the universal Archetype of the Teacher, the sacred nature of the teacher’s work, a special emphasis on the teacher’s calling and the mission characterized by a calling, righteousness and even sacrifice together with the selfless devotion to the teacher’s profession [7].

Along with other archetypal pedagogical concepts, Russian teachers reveal an immanently present special conservatism and rejection of innovations. The educational environment is particularly negative toward those who achieve success; it is also socially paternalistic and egalitarian, rejects paid educational services and a competition in the sphere of education [2].

It appears that the archetype is essentially reduced to the mainstream school and thus, it is unlikely to be reformed. In this respect, its archetype is closely related to the social code and the mental core of the Russian civilization. Fully developed in the middle of the 19th century it has not since undergone essential changes.

Archetypal educational concepts are more flexible in the theory of education and in the urban, primarily elite schools. In this regard, we may consider the presence of a fusion of several archetypal concepts, related to the special fate of the Russian civilization, which has experienced a great number of dramatic turns through its history.

Indeed, from the point of view of historical evolution, these concepts look rather mottled: Greek and Byzantine Orthodox education of “a spiritual structure”, a Swedish Protestant educational model during the time of Peter the Great, and after that French and Swiss Enlightenment ideas, laid down by Catherine II, and fully implemented by Alexander I. Then, comes the Prussian educational model, implemented by Nicholas I, and the German-Austrian school, which served as the Russian educational archetype in the second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries. Finally, there was the Soviet education period when John Dewey’s ideas of pragmatism were mixed with the parallel concepts from the late 19th century traditional German school [3].

The specific nature of the modern Russian education development consists in the fact that the educational consciousness includes all the above-mentioned historically formed archetypal concepts. It is this fact which lays the basis for simultaneous existence and realization of various development scenarios based on opposing manifestations of the collective unconscious and on diametrical universal models of the unconscious mental activity, which are randomly affecting educational players’ thinking and behavior. However, the same situation also significantly hampers the general evolution of the Russian school [8; 9].

The evolving sociocultural foundations of the social education process are affected by the change of cultural and educational types. Using the change of a human ideal as the main criterion, it is possible to define the following cultural and educational types (cycles):

Tradition. In the Slavic society of the pre-Christian world, the ideal is an individual who follows traditions and rituals. By tradition here we mean all customs, rites and forms of participation in the institutionalized life, which were performed consciously rather than formally.

Religion. In the 11th-17th century Kiev and Moscow Rus, social and cognitive education served only the religious goals. It was quite natural as religion dominated over all other social phenomena. It was Christianity that created and consolidated a new ethnos and served as the key tool in the development of Russia as a state.

Homeland. The imperial Russia (17th-19th century) considered a citizen, a patriot of Russia, and “a Homeland servant” as the best possible ideal of a citizen. There was an accelerated development of secular culture and a growing (starting from the previous stage) educational orientation towards an absolute identification of an individual with the society, which, nevertheless, did not hamper personal self-development. Everyone was supposed to do his/her best (willingly and with joy) for the common good. This unification of the social and personal gave birth to the principle of  educational collectives. The best of them formed the moral and intellectual foundation where the teachers’ personalities could enrich the “communalism” with their unique professional and spiritual wealth, thus, consolidating the inexhaustibility of the whole.

Society. In the second half of the 19th – early 20th centuries we observe an increasing orientation towards public ideals and values. Along with that teachers become more active by establishing new innovative educational institutions and consolidating into a rather wide-scale pedagogical movement [3].

Personality. From the 1980s and until the beginning of the 21st century there was an increasing move towards the personality-centered system of values in social education. This implied a stronger emphasis on shaping an inherently valuable personality, individually autonomous, and self-respected with a high level of self-esteem [5].

Recently, especially within the last two or three years there has shaped a new discourse, which is tangibly revealing itself in social education. In the present social and political situation, Russian education, just like the whole society, is entering a long-term traditional and conservative cycle, which used to be the case more than once through the 19th-20th centuries. In this connection, the crucial importance of success in the modern social education practice, which is carried out primarily on the domestic basis, relies on the social relationships, cultural ties and religious settings, traditional for the Russian society. It is therefore proposed in this paper, the analysis of the historical experience of the formation and implementation of educational activities, set on the traditionally-conservative basis, can improve the effectiveness of the joint efforts of the State, theory of education, and teaching institutions in formulating and implementing social and cultural modernization of Russian education.

This is why it is necessary to fully recognize a progressive and a conservative component in the social education practices as well as its their theoretical and pedagogical substantiation [1].

References

1. Boguslavsky, M.V. Istoriya pedagogiki: metodologiya, teoriya, personalii [History of pedagogy: methodology, theory, personalities]. M.: ITIP RAO, Izdatel'skiy tsentr IET, 2012
2. Boguslavsky, M.V. Innovatsionnyy potentsial razrabotki teorii soderzhaniya obrazovaniya i obrazovatel'nyh tekhnologiy (v otechestvennoy pedagogike vtoroy poloviny HKH veka) [Innovative potential of the educational content and development theory development (in the Russian pedagogy of the second half of the 20th century].- M. : ITIP RAO, 2008
3. Boguslavsky, M.V. Novye rubezhi pedagogicheskoy real'nosti: aksiologiya, duhovnost', gumanizm [New horizons of pedagogical reality: axiology, spirituality, humanism] / M.V.Boguslavsky, V.G.Aleksandrova. - M. : MGPU, 2007
4. Boguslavsky, M.V. Metodologiya i tekhnologii obrazovaniya (istoriko – pedagogicheskiy kontekst) [Methodology and methods of education (historical and educational context]. - M. : ITIP RAO, 2007
5. Boguslavsky, M.V. Detskoe dvizhenie v Rossii: mezhdu proshlym i budushchim / M.V.Boguslavsky [Youth movement in Russia: between the past and the future].-Tver' : Nauchnaya kniga, 2007
6. V poiskah gumanisticheskoy real'nosti: sb. nauchn.trudov [In search for humanistic reality: selected papers]. V.P.Bederhanova (Ed.).- Krasnodar: Kuban State University, 2007
7. Vul'fov B.Z. Pedagogika refleksii: Vzglyad na professional'nuyu podgotovku uchitelya [Reflection pedagogy: A view at a professional teacher training]/ B.Z.Vul'fov, V.N.Har'kin. - M.: ICP “Magister”, 1995
8. Karakovskiy V.A., Novikova L.I., Selivanova N.L.Vospitanie? Vospitanie… Vospitanie! Teoriya i praktika shkol'nyh vospitatel'nyh sistem [Social education? Social education… Social education! Theory and practice of school social education systems] // Edited by N.L. Selivanova. 2nd revised edition.-M., 2000.
9. Lichnost' shkol'nika kak tsel', ob’ekt, sub’ekt i rezul’tat vospitaniya [A school student’s personality as a goal, subject and a result of social education]. M.-Tver': OOO “IPF «Viart”, 2004
10. Metodologicheskie posledstviya paradigmal'nogo sdviga v teorii vospitaniya [Methodological outcomes of paradigm shift in the social education theory] / Edited by N.L.Selivanova, E.I.Sokolova.- M.- Tver': OOO «IPF «Viart», 2011