Modern trends in the development of domestic education and the mentality of the Russian nation
In modern education, there are more and more situations when technologies that do not work or that work with difficulty make one think about how correctly and correctly the course of education reform is chosen. So, everyone knows the badly working USE technology, which the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation is forced to adapt to the realities of Russia; not the first year; the imposition of distance learning technology causes controversy and misunderstanding among teachers; e-learning technologies are being introduced one-sidedly, "with pressure" …
In the peer-reviewed scientific journal European Researcher, 2014, Vol. (84), No 10-1, pp. 1789-1794. a work has been published that investigates the problems of introducing educational innovations and the influence of socio-psychological factors on these processes. For the first time in the scientific press, the methodology of system-vector psychology of Yuri Burlan is used in such a topic. The article shows that the successful introduction of innovations in education, both school and university, is possible only taking into account the peculiarities of the mentality of large communities of people. The mentality as a phenomenon is considered using the socio-psychological theory of the system-vector paradigm.
Article assigned DOI: 10.13187 / er.2014.84.1789
The international multidisciplinary bilingual scientific journal European Researcher is characterized by a high impact factor in the ranking of scientific publications:
Impact factor RSCI 2012 - 0.259
ICDS 2014: 5.602
ISSN 2219-8229. E-ISSN 2224-0136
We bring to your attention the text of the article:
Modern trends in the development of domestic education and the mentality of the Russian nation
annotation
The purpose of this article is to show the need to consider the introduction of new trends in Russian education through the prism of the mentality of a social community. To substantiate the author's position, the axiological and environmental approaches were used. The article shows that it is necessary to take into account the mentality in order to correctly introduce innovations. The substantiation of the author's position of perception of mentality through the prism of the system-vector psychology of Yuri Burlan is given.
Key words: mentality; education; Russian mentality; system-vector psychology of Yuri Burlan.
Introduction
In modern education, situations are increasingly common when technologies that do not work or that work with difficulty make one think about how correctly and correctly the course of education reform is chosen. So, everyone knows the badly working USE technology, which the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation is forced to adapt to the realities of Russia; not the first year; the imposition of distance learning technology causes controversy and misunderstanding among teachers; e-learning technologies are being introduced one-sidedly, “with pressure”. Where these technologies came from, they generally work and give a stable stable result, and the process of technologization of education itself is a general trend that has long been recognized by the world community.
In addition, it is necessary to focus on the values and trends in education, which were proposed by the Bologna Agreement, namely, mobility, student-centered approach, competence and competitiveness [1].
The tasks set for the pedagogical community by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation do not run counter to global trends in education, however, as already mentioned above, they raise many questions for both administrators and teachers and parents. There is a contradiction between modern world trends in education and the current situation in educational theory and practice in Russia; between the "pushing" of new values in the education system and the willingness to accept these values from the public. The above contradictions pose a problem for us that arises from these contradictions and answers the question: understanding what processes and social phenomena will contribute to the fact that the transformations in Russian education will take root and will be optimal?
Materials and methods
The article uses both periodical and monographic literature of leading scientists.
A number of research and scientific works were devoted to resolving the issue of the possibility of using technologies that give an effective result and are used in the future in one social structure and the impossibility of transferring good experience to other structures. The authors of this article decided to consider this problem from a slightly different angle. To consider this problem, we applied the axiological and environmental approaches.
The axiological approach involves considering issues from the angle of the value component, semantic content and content. It is in the educational sphere that it is necessary to pay close attention to the value issues, understanding the role of values as the basis, the basis of the personality, the "driving force" in the upbringing and development of the best qualities; it is the values that give the movement in the right strategic direction, which is set by the image of the cultural ideal, "ideal due" [2].
The environmental approach is a theory of the management of the process of human formation and development carried out through the designed environment. The environment acts as a means of complex purposeful impact on the personality, shaping the personality in its own image and likeness, revealing a variety of opportunities for personality development [3].
Thus, in order to answer the questions posed, it is necessary to consider in detail, first of all, the environment into which the transformations should be made, to study the value system that is established in this environment.
Discussion
How do the new trends in education and the specifics of the Russian mentality relate to each other? Can we say that mentality and education are related?
Let's turn to key concepts. The mentality of modern researchers, for example, B. I. Konenko, is understood in a general sense as "… those spiritual, moral and cultural values that form the basis of the worldview and worldview of an individual or community, which in turn determine their behavior" [4].
Mentality is determined by the deep spiritual makeup of a person or a nation, as a way of feelings and thoughts that determine the actions and deeds of its carriers. And it should be noted in this connection that the mentality has been developing for centuries, millennia and manifests itself in the historical and genetic memory of the people. Only knowing certain features of the mentality of a people or a community of people can one understand why in similar situations different nations (and people) behave differently. The mentality is formed under the influence of various factors - this is the influence of the environment of existence, and geoclimatic conditions, and cultural characteristics and traditions. Each individual person, being the bearer of a certain mentality, while living his life, evaluates the actions and feelings of other people through the prism of his inherent mentality. And of course, without knowing the mentality of an entire nation or a single person,you cannot build a successful interaction, i.e. such interaction that would not create conflicts and social catastrophes.
Thus, the peculiarities of how the perception and assessment of the surrounding world by a person or a community of people will take place will depend primarily on what kind of mentality they are carriers of. And that general, which has a supra-situational nature, which lies at the basis of the collective unconscious of a certain social community, which is deeply embedded and manifests itself both in everyday life and in the results of the life of the whole society, and will be determined as the mentality of a people or nation.
What do modern researchers say about this? What is Russian, or rather, Russian mentality? How do domestic researchers L. N. Gumilev, I. A. Ilyin, V. O. Klyuchevsky and other features and differences of the Russian (Russian) mentality? Here is the statement of the famous Russian philosopher I. A. Ilyin on the Russian soul: “Russian culture, first of all, is built on feeling and heart, on contemplation, on freedom of conscience and freedom of prayer. They are the primary forces and attitudes of the Russian soul, which sets the tone for their powerful temperament … the Russian people are a people of heart and conscience. Here is the source of its merits and demerits. In contrast to Western man, everything here is based on free kindness and on a somewhat dreamy, sometimes heartfelt contemplation. Hence the patience, the almost "divine fortress" of the Russian man,simplicity and dignity, "surprisingly calm attitude to death" as the ultimate form of evil "[5, p. 146]. Why did such special and incomprehensible, for example, for Europeans, qualities of a whole nation develop?
Both the Russian state itself and the Russian ethnos were geographically, historically, socially and psychologically "molded" as a result of the powerful impact of natural forces and other parallel developing civilizations. Our mentality is the result of the adaptation of the people to those harsh conditions of survival, which were associated with living in large open areas, confronting the harsh cold climate, adapting to poor harvests, when the main goal of a social community is to survive at all costs. That is why survival was ensured by joint labor, collective management of the economy, mutual assistance, mutual assistance, community, cultivating belonging and unity "with the world."
Again, I. A. Ilyin wrote: “Russia has brought us face to face with nature, harsh and exciting, with cold winters and hot summers, with hopeless autumn and stormy, passionate spring. She plunged us into these vibrations, made us live by their power and depth. The Russian character is so contradictory”[5, p. 167].
Thus, such qualities as contradictory, thirst for absolute freedom, obedience, hospitality, patience, religiosity and atheism, the ability to work hard for a short time, as well as "Great Russian maybe" (according to V. O. Klyuchevsky) are noticed in Russian people. That is why the type of our national mentality is not understood by either Europe or America.
IN. Klyuchevsky reveals the landscape predetermination of the Russian character as follows: “Great Russia XIII-XV centuries. with its forests, swampy swamps at every step it presented the settler with thousands of minor dangers, difficulties and troubles, among which he had to find, with which he had to fight every minute. This taught the Great Russian to watch nature vigilantly, to look at both, in his expression, to walk, looking around and feeling the soil, not to meddle in the water without looking for a ford, developed in him resourcefulness in small difficulties and dangers, the habit of patiently fighting adversity and hardships "[6].
It is remarkable that modern studies of the Russian mentality not only rely on the descriptive nature of the historical works of the great Russian researchers, but also reflexively track the peculiarities of the mentality, explaining seemingly inexplicable things that in the XIX-XX centuries. could only arise in a narrative way. In the 21st century, within the framework of a new direction in the human sciences - the system-vector psychology of Yuri Burlan, for the first time a definition of the Russian mentality is given as a urethral-muscular mentality. In system-vector psychology, there is the concept of "urethral measure", i.e. a measure of absolute bestowal and filling oneself in this bestowal.
Only the leader, the bearer of the urethral vector, is capable of fully surrendering and satisfying all the needs of the members of his group. Through this return, he realizes his specific role - to each according to his needs for moving forward, for development, to preserve the group in integrity. Achievement of the full realization of oneself, determined by the urethral measure, is possible only in the case of saturation and filling of those around it due to its shortages, “… the expansion of one's presence geographically, a wide unlimited space - a place for energy application. The essence of the urethral vector is giving away from oneself to everyone, for the common good, unlimited and in full. The urethral person does not tolerate restrictions, he simply does not see them, does not notice, at any moment he is ready to go “behind the flags”, there are no rules for him”[7].
The Russian people have always been a communal people. The conciliarity of Russians is one of the key phenomena that explains the special quality of interaction between people and our mentality. Life among the immense steppes, endless forests and plains, the width and breadth of fields in difficult climatic conditions did not push people away from each other, did not separate, but united. This is how the mentality of a large united community of people was formed over the centuries, which survived together in “free spiritual unity” [8], both in worldly and spiritual life. The meaning of life and happiness for us, Russians, determined by our mentality, means belonging, feeling like a part of something big. This part is a connection, both spiritual and physical, the feeling of being in the thick of events, belonging to a community of people united by something invisible,feeling like an active and protected part of this community. It is our Russian mentality - the urethral-muscular mentality, i.e. our common deep spiritual warehouse allows us to feel belonging to a single whole - a people with whom it is connected by invisible spiritual threads [9].
The mentality is conservative in nature. Human thinking, shaped to a large extent by mentality, cannot be readjusted quickly. Mentality, as the aggregate mental warehouse of the historical community of people, and education, as a social institution, are in complex interaction. The quality and state of education and the mentality of the nation are interrelated and interdependent quantities. And at the same time, it is education, as a social institution that ensures the transfer of knowledge, traditions, and values of a social community, that recreates, strengthens, and continues the existence of a certain mentality over time.
What should be the answer to frequently asked questions from both professionals and non-specialists regarding European values that are being introduced into the domestic education system? Any educational innovations will only be stable and viable if they correspond to the mentality of the nation and are introduced against a positive background of social development. The current state of the Russian society is characterized by the fact that the "grafting" of the individualistic values of Western civilization occurred distortedly, superficially, due to the archaic state of a certain layer of society, determined by the archetypal "skin vector", according to system-vector terminology, and could not have happened otherwise on spaces of the given enclosing landscapes. Instead of standardized lawmaking and a civilized business approach,for the most part received an archetypal rampant corruption, nepotism and forgery [10].
The USE system, for example, as a system of standardized averaging testing, was introduced without taking into account the peculiarities of the Russian mentality. And as a result, we got a decrease in passing scores, USE tourism, money-grubbing, an increase in corruption, adaptation to any administrative measures of influence, leakage of information about the content of testing. It is difficult to change the mentality in a short time period, it is even more difficult to impose alien innovations on a mentally homogeneous society, especially at such a stage when a certain layer of society is characterized by archetypal values.
Conclusion
The mentality of the Russian people is stable and the peculiarity of Russians is that they are able to rally in difficult times. It is possible that this time has come for our national education. After all, only a systemic awareness of the deep peculiarities of mentality, cultural traditions and an understanding of the current state of society will help to revise those chaotic attempts to reform Russian education. Not every imposed, blindly copied innovation is innovation. The newly built system should not destroy, but take into account the peculiarities of the individual and social consciousness of people, their life positions, culture, models of behavior conditioned by the social environment, national traditions, i.e. mentality.
Notes:
- Vinevskaya A. V. On the problem of professional mobility of a teacher. // Innovations in education. 2012. No. 8. S. 49-59
- V. M. Vidgof Ontology of an interdisciplinary approach and the humanistic principle of aesthetically oriented pedagogy. Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Philosophy. Sociology. Political science. 2008. No. 3. S. 61-64
- Manuilov Yu. S. The environmental approach to education. M. - Nizhny Novgorod, 2002. S. 126
- Kononenko B. I. The Big Explanatory Dictionary of Cultural Studies. M.: Publishing house: Veche 2000, AST, 2003
- Ilyin I. A. Essence and originality of Russian culture. M., 1992
- Klyuchevsky V. O. Russian history course. Part I // Works: In 8 volumes. M., 1956. T. I. S. 294-295
- Matochinskaya A. Mysterious Russian soul. [electronic resource] Access mode. - URL: //www.yburlan.ru/biblioteka/zagadochnaya-russkaya-dusha
- Khomyakov A. S. Full composition of writings. Vol. 1. Izv-in: University printing house. M., 1886-1906
- Ochirova V. B. Innovations in psychology: an eight-dimensional projection of the pleasure principle // Collection of materials of the I International scientific-practical conference "New word in science and practice: Hypotheses and approbation of research results" / ed. S. S. Chernov; Novosibirsk, 2012. S. 97-102
- Ochirova V. B. Systemically about tolerance. A look through the prism of culture and civilization // Methodological guide for conducting seminars and game trainings aimed at the formation of a tolerant consciousness. / ed. A. S. Kravtsova. N. V. Emelyanova; SPb., 2012. S. 109-114
