Volume: 8, Issue: 1
1/05/2016
1/05/2016
KEYWORDS: identity, educational system, pedagogical brand, causes and consequences of fascination with identity
ABSTRACT: The category of identity has recently acquired the symbolic nature and has become the type of a pedagogical brand in the Russian education. The paper discusses different causes that explain it including state, research-related, applied, as well as public and vocational levels, and also some consequences.
Introduction
The history of an educational process development in each national educational system and its analysis may theoretically be divided into relatively finished time periods. The history of pedagogy knows quite a few criteria to make such timelines: paradigm changes, dates of reforms, birth-development-domination-standardization of various original systems, methods, ideas, and the like. I believe such a criterion may well be the domination of certain brands in the pedagogical terminology (like communist education, creative collective activity, pedagogical innovations, pedagogical strategies, student-centered approach, competences and expertise) used in the Russian education and pedagogy of the previous century. By overlapping and coexisting, pedagogical brands, like paradigms, not only reflect the object of scholars and practitioners’ interest by symbolizing some “starting point” but also determining the context for analysis and design of educational process in this sphere.
The notion of identity has been increasingly claimed to become such a brand in the Russian pedagogy and education for the last decade. What is the reason of such steadfast interest and what has been its real outcome so far? This research paper is an attempt to answer these questions.
Causes of the growing interest in ‘identity’ in education and pedagogy
When back in the late 1990s, I stated the problem of a pedagogical support, formation and development of students’ identity as a subject for my study, I came across certain perplexity among my colleagues and representatives of educational institutions. At that time this term was hardly used in the Russian pedagogy and education. After two decades (a very small time period in terms of educational knowledge dynamics), the situation has changed dramatically. I may offer a few reasons to explain this.
Firstly, as it often occurs, there was a certain political bias. The borderline of 2000 in education and pedagogy was the period of enthusiasm and openness with amazing lectures of famous scholars, which I can recall, at the Institute of Theory and Pedagogy of the USSR Academy of Education, e.g., devoted to the educational concepts in Daniil Andreev’s Roza Mira /Rose of the World/, analysis of Sergey Iosifovich Gessen’s and Vasily Vasilyevich Zen’kovsky’s legacy or pedagogical ideas of the Russian cosmists. But soonafter, the unprecedented active search was inevitably followed by unification and centralization: the range of problems “shrank” and was reduced again to traditional issues of pedagogical research as well as an unavoidable rejection of innovations’ enthusiasm in educational practice, which followed after the decentralization and deregulation of the national system of education as the result from the 1992 and 1996 laws On education. If I take liberty and use the language of synergetic analysis, that period may be described as a fading activity of the system after just another bifurcation point was over. The system was returning back to its balance. At the same time a whole number of changes could not be undone. They included the loss of unity and an exponential growth of various “new practices,” often significantly contradicting each other. Considering the vast territory of our country, it was hardly possible to control the system with such characteristics without making use of special instruments. I assume that the “miraculous way out” was rather simple. We had to abandon the “sovereignty parades” of multiple I’s and turn to the uniting We, to the definition and constitution of “I” through “we”. I should also emphasize the fact that this transition is more than natural for the Russian system of education, because one of the formative characteristics of public and state life in Russia was and still is sobornost [as a spiritual community of many jointly living people]. But to speak about collectivism in those conditions or, even more so, to put it forth as a goal, was impossible. The collective and collectivism were inevitably associated with the Soviet pedagogy and the Soviet school. However, the way out was found – the notion of identity was actively promoted.
Secondly, there was an aggressive domination of psychology over pedagogy and education. The late 1990s – early 2000s was the period when psychology became extremely popular. The school introduces a new staff position of school psychologist; a new service of education psychologists was set up and developed; programs of psychological or/and pedagogical support were created and implemented; various specialized and multidisciplinary centers were established. However, it was not the social and psychological knowledge that gained popularity but theoretical and practical methods of psychological development as well as individual psychology. Education is increasingly focusing on personality and individuality, processes of self-development, self-realization, self-actualization, self-determination, etc. There was an inevitable interest in the problems of self-consciousness. But this traditional subject of philosophic and psychological analysis of educational reality was (and still is) very complicated both in terms of interpretation and professional arrangement. Indeed, how can a teacher work with individuality when s/he had to aim at the development of self-consciousness and other self-development processes in the mainstream school with the dominating frontal and collective forms of school activities. Besides, there was not enough philosophic or psychological substantiation. In such a situation pedagogy could not suggest any logical system of solutions and practical actions. At the same time it was a mistake not to move in that direction. As a result, the most “pedagogically-oriented” theories and concepts were preferred. Among them were identity theories and concepts.
Thirdly, the developing scientific pedagogical knowledge was in need of innovative ideas, explaining, in particular, such basic problems as a transition of the social into the individual, specific strategies of sociocultural inheritance, and dynamic (rather than constant) parameters of a personality growth. The identity theories and concepts gave rather specific answers to those questions.
Fourthly, a whole number of processes, increasingly spreading in the society, needed (as demanded by the public) their interpretation and pedagogical (including remedial and preventive pedagogical) support. They included:
- Instability and changeability of norms, values and patterns to be socially and culturally inherited; diverse carriers of the sociocultural background, often competing with each other in their struggle for younger generations.
- A crisis of traditional social institutes as carriers of long-established connections and relationships, which predetermines the decrease of their reference for the personality and inevitably exacerbates the problem of an individual identity formation.
- Multiple evidence of an identification crisis revealed in the increasing number of young people with a vague (“it has nothing to do with me”, “I don’t know”, “this means nothing to me”, etc.) and deviant identity (disregard or rejection of conventional norms, values, attitudes or models).
- An increasing number of young people with an identity moratorium and its specific process of alienation from the society (they do not identify themselves with anybody or anything; they are self-centered, reveal hypertrophied inclination for identity “individualization” supported, among other things, by some pedagogical practices).
- A disagreement in terms of identity models between young people and their parents or teachers; however, the influence of the latter on the lower level of identification uncertainty and deviant identity still remains fundamental and significant, etc. [Shakurova, 2007].
The problem of identity in pedagogical research and mass practice
During the last few decades the government officials, agencies, and bodies have often made use of the “identity” category when characterizing public, official, and international processes, and phenomena. But there is also a tangible outcome, e.g., in 2010 The Federal State Standard of General Comprehensive Education named results of personality development and among them was the formation of the Russian civic identity [Federal State…, 2010]. In 2015 the Strategy of Advancing Personality Development (vospitanie) in the Russian Federation for the Period through 2025 stated,
“The government policy priorities in the area of social education are: to facilitate education of a healthy, happy, free and labor-oriented personality; to teach children high moral standards and shape the feeling of belonging to the historical and cultural legacy of the Russian people and the future of the nation” [Strategy of Advancing…, 2015].
The scientific community welcomes an introduction of the identity problems to pedagogical research as well as the increasing number of such research projects. I supervised A.N. Makhinin’s thesis on the topic of Shaping high school students’ Russian civic identity in school extracurricular activities, where the author made an attempt to provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of research and practice related to the subject in question (2011-2014) [Makhinin, 2014]. Let us turn to the conclusions:
- Research. The “Russian civic identity” (Russian identity) construct appeared only in one paper (S.N. Golikova, 2012) among pedagogical research publications of the aforementioned period. The analysis of 2560 PhD theses abstracts only 7 papers (0.27%) (M.V. Tsiulina, 2012; I.A. Verhovyh, 2012; T.M. Gulevich, 2012, etc.) touched upon the aspects of identification and identity. The “identity” construct as a leading concept was used by I.A. Chugaeva, 2013; A.V. Samoylova, 2013; E.I. Kazakova, 2013; N.A. Gul'neva-Lugovskaya, 2012 (0.15% of the surveyed abstracts).
- Large-scale pedagogical practice. Analysis of the existing school practices reveals deficiency and poor credibility of systematic and purposeful work to build and develop Russian civic identity in the present-day school. This may be seen in the lack of attention to the pattern “translator” (which often leads to the situation when an educational institution, characterized by low reference of teachers and the school, report the results that are hardly achievable); the practice remains when schools stick to collecting information without reflection or participation in the reported activities; there is still an imitation of students’ self-governance, disregard of subcultural peculiarities of high-school students’ micro groups; the school partnership with families is declared but unlikely to be implemented in reality (considering the specifics of identity, there is a risk of building a negative identity) [7, 58-60].
Apparently, the problems of identity made me feel about the necessity to go back to the ideas of the ‘pedagogy of relations’ rather than the pedagogy of activities, “indirect” methods, the referents-driven parallel action method, and the role model method [7, 58-60].
A discussion and a conclusion
I believe that the fascination in the topic of identity will, in the situation of poor theoretical foundations, entail inevitable profanation of the really vital objective. But to ensure readiness for mass practice, it is necessary to find answers and work out scientific and methodological solutions to numerous essential questions. I will name just a few of them.
|
Identity is an element of self-consciousness |
What is the best way to diagnose and then determine the level of self-consciousness (especially in relation to preschool or elementary school children)? What does group (collective) self-consciousness mean, especially in terms of group identity? What are pedagogically appropriate and possible channels of influence (management / formation)? |
Identity is realistic |
The demonstrated anthropo-patterns (material for the developing identity) should not be an ‘estranged norm.’ What is the way to make them appealing to a modern young person? The younger the child, the clearer, more specific and less contradictory should anthropo-patterns be. Upon the child’s growth the patterns should be expanded and demonstrate less contradiction or ambiguity but be more diverse. In any case anthropo-patterns need to be described. Do teachers and the modern school have such descriptions [16]? |
Identity is determined by references |
A teacher and a school are mostly non-referential for children (in fact, if there is no connection to the reference parameter scale, there is no positive social education. Teachers are unable to maintain the highest possible significance (in terms of an emotional appeal, authority or power). Thus, they abuse their own significance based on power. In this case, identity may form (especially if the school or teachers are negatively significant), but “ad absurdum” (“whatever but not to be like you”). |
Identity is the result of one’s choice |
How to teach school students make their own choice of anthropo-patterns among such very complicated beings like people? How can we attract anthropo-patterns, not very bright or easily achieved but important in terms of educational objectives? What should be done so that teachers, school or classmates may be selected to be the referent group? |
Identity is in congruity with nature |
According to some opinions (J. Piaget, 1951; E. Erikson,1996; A.I. Korotaeva, 2011; V.R. Orestova, 2001, I.A. Snezhkova, 1982, etc.) there exists an age dynamics and sensitive periods in the formation and development of various types of identity. They may be used to lay the foundations for the formation and development of more complicated types (e.g., the Russian civic identity through the ethnic one, which is formed in the preschool age while the genuine full-fledged civic identity is formed in adolescents). Is it correct to be “fond” of only one type of identity without taking into consideration the formation of other types? |
The scientific and methodological solution of these and other similar problems is an urgent goal for the Russian educational theory and practice. Its achievement requires understanding of the complexity and interdisciplinary nature of the problem, taking into consideration the specifics of the system of education, its potential and limitations as well as its respective teacher training.
References
Home | Copyright © 2025, Russian-American Education Forum
