KEYWORDS: being in opposition, clarity of style, social pedagogy, socialization, spontaneity, antisocial education.

ABSTRACT: The paper introduces the legacy of a famous Russian scholar Anatoly Viktorovich Mudrik and presents a brief analysis of his theoretical search and its results. The author, a former Mudrik’s student and an academic himself, summarizes key features of Mudrik’s theoretical approaches and their difference from conventional and more traditional pedagogy. The paper discusses the contribution that Mudrik made in the formation of a non-classical tradition of liberal studies in modern Russia.

---

In the past decades the name of Anatoly Viktorovich Mudrik has become a canonical symbol for each, even not a very well educated graduate of Russian teacher training universities. Hundreds of PhD candidates and graduates automatically type A.V. Mudrik in their “theoretical foundations” sections. All this is an undeniable proof of Mudrik’s successful career as a key scholar in his field. Few people may boast such achievements in education (and especially in the area of social education).

Before we undertake to compare Mudrik’s approach to other modern pedagogical theories, let us look at some aspects that might be of less conceptual weight but which still distinguish his works.

First, it is his being in opposition to traditional theory. Paradoxically enough but Mudrik’s texts have always been in opposition, first, to Marx and Lenin’s ideology and, later on, to newfangled trends of Russian contemporary pedagogy. Today, the flow of papers about spiritual substances in the Russian pedagogy may be compared only to publications devoted to communication some forty years ago. Anatoly Mudrik was not favored by the communist regime in the Soviet Union where his works were not unduly regarded as “infected by bourgeois influence.” He refused to participate either in the 1990s criminal bacchanalia in Russia, which penetrated education and pedagogy, or in the sweeping grotesque and ugly parody-like more recent neoliberal education reforms coming from the West. Mudrik’s pedagogy is persistently ignored by the official political elite.

Secondly, it is clarity. Mudrik’s texts always combine a simple and laconic style of narration along with strong inner logic and cohesion. His texts, economical in both style and logic, are easily recognized. They cannot be misunderstood, even if we try.

Any Western reader might find it hard to imagine that contemporary Russian research-based pedagogy treats simplicity as something of mauvais ton. The submission of an educational project written in a simple and understandable language will most likely be turned down as “anti-scientific”. By the way, pedagogy is not the only science which suffers from piling complexities. Jack Trout, guru of modern marketing, devoted many chapters of his bestsellers to simplicity and common sense.

Mudrik’s research-based or, to be more exact, civic viewpoint is that he always intentionally wrote for students and teachers.

Having practical orientation of a research-based pedagogical text is in itself a great merit. In this case we witness the situation when not only a practitioner may use theoretical constructs through easy comprehension of their language forms, but the language of practice also enters research-based texts. In other words, Mudrik’s texts describe rather complicated theoretical constructs using the language commonly used in public schooling. We find it to be of the highest possible merit and praise that a scholar and educator can receive. Logical positivism is still exotic for Russian pedagogy.

How does Mudrik’s name come along in the Russian theory of education, and what associations it might cause? The answer to this question is the triad of “communication”, “socialization,” and “social education”. Of course, this list may be continued.

As early as in 2007, Mudrik described isolation in historical retrospective and defined its stages in early youth. Besides, he was probably the first in the Russian pedagogy to consider the seclusion phenomenon and its functions in early youth.

We should remember that in the late 1970s socialization as a scientific concept was treated with much criticism by the majority of Russian authors. The situation did not change dramatically even some years later when Mudrik suggested his definition of socialization as human development and self-changes while adopting and reproducing culture. Mudrik saw the essence of socialization in “integration of the individual’s adjustment and isolation within a particular society”.

This approach defines the semantic field that contains (with much spare space left) all the objective contents of contemporary Russian pedagogy and enables both the processes of social formation of an individual as a social being and the processes of formation of human individuality.

Having defined the essence of the socialization process, Mudrik made another step forward: he analyzed the levels of socialization. Thus, along with traditionally spontaneous and organized, relatively socially controlled socializations, he distinguished a relatively directed socialization, which usually takes place during an interaction between an individual and the state on federal and regional levels.

Logical opposition (or, perhaps, conjunction) of socialization and social education turned out to be more than just a productive step. Logical opposition made it possible to emphasize crucial characteristics of social education, some of which had been previously ignored.

It might seem that the concept of social education as a conscious activity is a self-evident pedagogical axiom, which does not need any comments. However, Mudrik introduces spontaneity as an integral component of social education: “Social education, along with elements of learning, includes the process of regular instruction.” Consequently, social education cannot be considered an entirely purposeful and rational process. The subject of traditional pedagogy used to be a purposeful process (which was specifically defined and limited by a number of factors) of social pedagogy as a functioning social structure in all diversity of its expression.

If spontaneous socialization obviously has an integrated character, than social education, according to Mudrik, is a partial process, for educating communities have discordant objectives, goals, content and methods; these communities do not and cannot have rigid or just productive relationship, cooperation, coordination, or continuity.

By staying within this logical “partial field” partiality can be defined as some kind of a counterbalance to the systemic approach in its various forms. The correlation of partiality and a systematic nature is in itself one of the most interesting, a philosopher would say, ontological problems: indeed, the system may function just within the limits of some integrity (elements consolidated by a network of stable connections).

Mudrik comes to another conclusion, strange in its self-evidence: he assumes that social education is a discreet process. He points to the fact that social education exists in various communities and is limited by the place and time. The development (which, unfortunately, has not begun yet) of the problem of social education discreetness could put forth a number of most interesting research prospects like rhythms in social education or (to make it sound more science-based) temporary structuring of the social education process.

A special place in Mudrik’s concept is given to the description of social education as a social institute. This characteristic first appeared in 1997 in the form of a chapter in his Introduction to Social Pedagogy. This approach may readily host all types of social education classified by Mudrik: family, social, religious, dissocial and special education. In each of these forms we may see their own systems of educational organizations and subjects of social education, which use personal, spiritual, informational, financial, and material resources.

This approach actualizes both diversity and integrity of social education. Practically, all textbooks in pedagogy implicitly take into account the conditions of a particular school. A supplementary education teacher, and especially a social educator, will not find any facts in such textbooks in connection with what they are really doing. And just the opposite, the school teacher quickly and indifferently flips through pages which describe the work with, say, the unemployed.

Anatoly Mudrik was the first academic in Russia who had the courage to explicitly state the fact that social education might carry negative value implications. Although the term “dissocial education” was coined rather long ago, it is still not among broadly cited categories. It has not been accepted in institutionalized pedagogy which serves the needs of the Internal Affairs Ministry or the Ministry of Justice.

However, Mudrik’s legacy may be considered on a wider scale. Mudrik himself, when assessing his own work, uses the classification successfully applied by Professor Tatyana Romm when analyzing the history of social pedagogy which focused on two approaches: normative and interpretative. Standardization is understood as developing the principles of classical and scientist learning based on the principles of objectivity, impartiality and universal truth while the interpretative approach is seen as the spread of hermeneutic norms in pedagogy and inclination for the “understanding” setting.

No doubt that the semantic axis of “interpretative-normative” reveals much in Mudrik’s approach. But this is not the only semantic axis.

On the other hand, Mudrik’s creative work may well correlate with classical, non-classical, and post-non-classical periodization in the development of science.

The standard of classical science goes back to Isaac Newton’s natural science. Its key feature implies that there are some objective and independent laws in nature and society, and the science provides an objective way to study these laws resulting in a more accurate reflection of reality. The subjective factor related to the researcher is thought to be an obstacle on the way towards objective research. The term “scientism” is often used as a generalized description of this approach.

The classical (or, to use a more favorable term – traditional) pedagogy comprises the knowledge about laws in social and academic education, which exclude human uniqueness and subjectivity. Examples (despite all their differences) are Johann Herbart’s pedagogy and most pedagogical works of the Soviet period. Its subject is the social and academic education laws that are clearly seen as essential and repeated relations that are objective and irrespective of the differences of the people who are involved in these relations and interactions.

Non-classical pedagogy is aware of the cultural and historical boundaries that determine the origin of pedagogical concepts. Understanding this dependence and trying to evaluate it, non-classical pedagogy, in practice, turns out to be much more “objective” than the traditional one. People can choose neither their parents nor the time or place of their birth. And educators are not an exception.

I believe that Mudrik’s works develop this very pedagogical methodology. His publications introduce pedagogical laws as originating from everyday interactions among people rather than from some absolute laws indifferent in their nature and seen as a “superior” control over students and educators from above. At the same time, the area of pedagogy includes the whole range of teachers and students’ life activities, while pedagogy as a field of knowledge and practical activity is considered in the context of subculture, i.e. as the whole wealth of factors that in fact determine the process of social education.

The post-non-classical pedagogy  (or pedagogy of postmodern) is the pedagogy of extreme individualism, which rejects social institutes including institutes of education.

The third semantic axis is in Mudrik’s interrelation with the traditionally shaped philosophy of education and subsequent methodology of pedagogy. We will borrow the characteristics of two major philosophies of education (empirical and analytical versus humanitarian) from A.P. Ogurtsov and V.V. Platonov.2

Which of them would Mudrik’s works rather belong to?

The first (an empirical and analytical approach) studied the language (both scientific and logical), built critical and rationalistic pedagogy which differentiated itself from values and metaphysics (Scheffler, Peters, K. Popper, Brezinka, and the like) – they all tended towards a nomological explanation of objective laws of human existence presenting education as a purposeful activity.

The second (a humanitarian approach) widely applied philosophic, theological, moral, esthetic, and even mystical forms of non-scientific knowledge in their attempt to understand educational reality as something which develops from everyday processes and to explain it based on human actions (Nohl, Weininger, Flittner, Buber, and the like).

Works of modern philosophers reflect, on the one hand, a clear process to integrate these two approaches and, on the other hand, to expand the humanitarian approach.

I consider that Mudrik’s works reveal one more possible way to converge these two approaches, but with an emphasis on the empirical and analytical. Science-based knowledge is not imposed on practice but correlates with it.

All his life Anatoly Mudrik has been constructing his own pedagogy in accordance with his own understanding of what is right. As it turned out Mudrik’s construction is “in resonance” with the majority of eternal pedagogical problems.

The keys to objective science-based knowledge are in considering social education as a social institute while pedagogy – as one of the ways to legitimize it.

In our multicultural world Anatoly Mudrik’s works justify, solidify, and protect the layer of cultural, educational, and pedagogical reality, which is the safest space for the child and natural for any educator. Thus, it is highly relevant and truly significant.

---

A.V. Mudrik’s selected works3

• O vospitanii starsheklassnikov [On high-school students’ social education]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1976, 174 p. (translated into Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian).
• Sovremennyy starsheklassnik: problemy samoopredeleniya [A modern high-school student: Problems of self-determination]. Moscow: Znanie, 1977, 86 p.
• Lichnost' shkol'nika i ee vospitanie v kollektive [A school student’s personality and its social education in the collective]. Moscow: Znanie, 1983. 96 p.
• Obshchenie kak faktor vospitaniya shkol'nikov [Socialization as a factor of school students’ social education]. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1984, 108 p.
• Uchitel': Masterstvo i vdohnovenie [Teacher: Mastery and inspiration]. Moscow:  Prosveshchenie, 1986, 160 p.
• The One True Luxury. Moscow: Progress Publishers. 1987, 239 p.
• Samye trudnye gody [The hardest years]. Moscow: Znanie, 1990, 64 p.
• Sotsializatsiya i vospitanie podrastayushchih pokoleniy [Socialization and social education of young generations]. Moscow: Znanie RSFSR, 1990, 44 p.
• Vremya poiskov i resheniy ili starsheklassnikam o nih samih [Time for search and solutions, or high school students about themselves]. Moscow: Prosveshchenie, 1990, 190 p.
• Sotsializatsiya i “smutnoe vremya” [Socialization and “time of troubles”]. Moscow: Znanie, 1991, 79 p.
• Vvedenie v sotsial'nuyu pedagogiku, Chast’ 1 [Introduction into social pedagogy, Part 1]. Penza: PGPU. 1994, 169 p.
• Vvedenie v sotsial'nuyu pedagogiku [Introduction into social pedagogy]. Moscow: RAO-MPSI, 1997, 364 p.
• Sotsializatsiya i vospitanie [Socialization and social education]. Moscow: Sentyabr', 1997. 96 p.
• Sotsial'naya pedagogika: uchebnik dlya vuzov [Social pedagogy: Textbook for universities]. – Moscow: Izdatel'skiy tsentr Academia, 1999, 183 p. (revised in 2000, 2001, 2003, 2005, 2007, 2009, 2013, 2014.).
• Obshchenie v protsesse vospitaniya [Socialization in the process of social education]. Moscow: Pedagogicheskoe obshchestvo Rossii, 2001, 320 p.
• Sotsializatsiya cheloveka [Human socialization]. Moscow: Izdatel'skiy tsentr Academia, 2004, 300 p.
• Psihologiya i vospitanie [Psychology and social education]. Moscow: RAO-MPSI, 2006, 470 p.
• Osnovy sotsial'noy pedagogiki [Basics of social pedagogy]. Moscow: Izdatel'skiy tsentr Academia, 2006, 205 p.
• Sotsializatsiya vchera i segodnya [Socialization yesterday and today]. M.: RAO-MPSI, 2006. 428 p.
• Sotsializatsiya cheloveka [Human socialization]. 2nd revised edition. Moscow: Izdatel'skiy tsentr Academia, 2006, 303 p.
• Vvedenie v sotsial'nuyu pedagogiku [Introduction to social pedagogy]. 2nd revised edition. Moscow: RAO-MPSI, 2009, 564 p.
• Sotsial'naya pedagogika: teoriya i metodika sotsial'nogo vospitaniya. Uchebnoe posobie dlya vuzov [Social pedagogy: theory and methods of social education. A textbook for universities]. Co-author: T.T. Shchelinoy. M.: Nota Bene. 2008, 218 p.
• Sotsializatsiya cheloveka [Human socialization]. Moscow-Voronezh: RAO-MPSI, 2011, 624 p. (3d revised edition).