Cultural landscape of contemporary Russian education: the change of global, regional and
local paradigms
Silantieva M.V. 1
1 Professor, Doctor of Philosophy, Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University)
Abstract
The article considers the dominant tendencies of contemporary Russian education transformations at global, regional
and local levels owing to the “changes” in socio-cultural dynamics characterizing on the one hand the development of
informational technologies, on the other – the spreading of “consumption and post-consumption society” ideology.
The tendency of grading national educational models specific character and educational technologies leveling to the
standardized patterns of foreign science schools radically change the landscape of contemporary education in our
country. It is necessary to complement this process with the axiological content alternative to these purely
technological “standards”. Some religious and secular models of this complementation intended to compensate the
lack of goal-setting and motivation, peculiar to “neutral”, pragmatically-oriented educational technologies, are
considered on the basis of their pros and cons.
Keywords: Philosophy of education, philosophy of culture, socio-cultural context, cultural landscape, national
educational models, radical transformations, globalization.
Culturology
The significance of the study of dominant educational models change problem at local, regional and global
levels, connected with the radical transformation of socio-cultural paradigms, is obvious. It is defined in the first place
by the fact that education – is one of the main mechanisms of culture translation allowing in a relatively integral way
to reproduce the basic features of cultural forms, which characterize the given national culture landscape. The
problems of cultural heritage preservation and translation [4] are therefore closely connected with a national
educational model – a specific type of national culture whole sphere reproduction and development.
The contemporary stage of this problem is characterized by the necessity of its unique, specific and
universal correlation proportions reframing. The question at first concerns “locally-uniqueness” – the unique national
cultural entities recorded today in 1) an independent political unity and 2) the style of living of “culturally-preserved”
expatriate communities in different countries similar to their culture local models. Secondly we speak about “specifity”
– at the regional level, not compatible with a country level as a political process unit. It is a natural intertwinement of
political, geographical and climatic, economic and other connections. The third level – “universal” – supposes some
common features defining a national cultural organism proper, aside of any other type of social structures. At this
level we can analyze a “global” socio-cultural entity – mankind, which social structure has certain constructive
peculiarities unlike other “tzardoms” of living organisms – flora, fauna, bacteria etc.
At present we see some system changes at all three levels, which influence the transformation of
educational models and corresponding development strategies and demand the description of this complex multilevel
synergy as a united process deforming and restructuring the system formed relations in the frames of the most
important society responsibility sphere – its ability to preserve the valuable, reject the false and produce the
essentially new and advanced in the process of communication [6].
A relevant to the given aim methodology presupposes the foundation on the philosophical cultural means of
description and evaluation of the flowing processes systematically oriented, preserving their functionally-analytical
content and revealing the methodology’s analytically-synthetic potential in the way of its actual approbation [8]. It is
necessary to mark the certain elements of contemporary society structure, which are closely connected with
education and influence its development strategies formation; and also to describe precisely the main features of
these elements’ connections according to their dynamic relations with different culture proper subsystems segments
(science, arts, religion, sport etc.).
The strategy of the study of a contemporary Russian educational socio-cultural landscape problem is
defined also by the correlations between the present and just beginning to shape cultural forms – and their temporal
meaning. The study is impossible outside historical context, even the smallest. Consequently we have to analyze the
most important paradigmatic changes reflecting the mutation of content outer marks and the methods characterizing
the present day education features counter to the history of the problem.
Thus the landscape of contemporary Russian education if defined by the two main projections “overlaid”
each other – paradigmatic and structure-forming. They are both under the dynamic process resulting from
contemporary socio-cultural transformations of traditional relations systems. It is however important not to “dissolve”
national specific in the trans-national changes, but to observe the latter’s reflection onto the former.
Let’s begin with the structure changes, common for the most countries and regions of the world and which
are today connected with the enforcement of globalization scale influence – in other words the strengthening of the
interdependence of different world regions and also the speeding of such a process (sometimes in the form of a
negation [1]).
First of all let’s single out the “notional structure” of the cultural form which today gives the basic
characteristics of the phenomenon known as “education”. Of course a “classical” model of education was developed
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
SIlantieva M.V., 2014
in the Modern Age and it is connected (in Russia too) with the development of European universities (especially
German), school education (J.A. Komensky) and the special method which combines personal formation with
obtaining the knowledge of a certain type.
A model of “paideia” of Ancient Greece considering education as a process of a personality formation under
the influence of acquired knowledge has determined a national way of teaching since the time of Ancient Russ. Thus
a medieval “book-learning” (similar to home education) presupposed a reading for “brain and heart”. People read The
Scripture, hagiographical literature, Holy fathers’ writings [3]. The monastery education supposed the deeper study of
these texts and learning of theological and liturgical books. The transformation of this educational model, which
began in the Modern Age and is connected in Russia with the name of Simeon of Polotsk, an outstanding state and
cultural luminary of the time of Alexey Mikhailovitch (XVII c.), is considered as a creatively rethought “borrowing” of
new cultural forms from “the West” – coming through Poland and Byelorussia as not “spiritually-centered”, but
secular-oriented, anthropocentric writings gradually infiltrating into the educated persons’ libraries.
Russian education then got an impulse after the foundation of the first higher education institution – SlavicGreek-Latin Academy (1687). The end of XVII – the beginning of XVIII cc. was marked by a further secular bookknowledge development along with the traditions of home education built according the medieval model. Peter I (and
Jury Krishanitch) time wholly transferred the accent to the secular events and a kind of objective scientificality: there
arose famous Tsar “assemblies” practicing a “civilized” pastime of the aristocrats within the Tsar’s circle similar to
Peter I’ imaging them in relation to European courts, borrowing the external traits of a new anthropocentric (secular)
model of recreation. In this socio-cultural atmosphere he consciously forms and promotes a higher demand to the
detailed knowledge of construction-engineering, navigation, military art; of some other applied production disciplines
(mountain and foundry engineering, growing volumes of traditional production – hemp, candles, writing accessories
etc.). Thus there arises a demand in educated men, knowing mathematics, physics, chemistry, astronomy etc., and
also an eternal for Russia problem of “brain drain”: the autocratic rule with its despotism and personal exploitation in
the aim of a state tasks solution as compared with the “milder” and more “civilized” European analogues was less
attractive for those “educational recruits” who did not have the virus of “patriotism” inherent in Peter’s and his
associates’ nature. An attempt to “book” an Academy of Science consisting of the “foreigners” also had an underside,
quickly converting into the state-workshop corporation, acting according to a national-clannish principle. No wonder
that M.V. Lomonosov from time to time beat with a stick the losing all sense of moderation “foreigners”, pursuing to
his mind not enough patriotic science policy. However it was the reason of the “first Russian university’s” (as A.S.
Pushkin called Lomonosov) punishment by Tsar Power: it is no good encouraging nationalism, including a local one,
when it is desirable to obtain really valuable scientific results and to create a really perspective system of science and
education connection. Actually M.V. Lomonosov was the first “retranslator” of a German university model to Russia,
which includes Moscow University (1755) founded together with Count P.A. Shuvalov. The further development of
this model was in the end of XVIII c. at the reign of Ekaterina II, who corresponded with Voltaire and Diderot (as Peter
I corresponded at his time with G.V. Leibnitz). However the state authorities looked suspiciously at this system of
education, which for example did not include a theological faculty in Moscow University. It lasted not only during XIX
c., but is still true of the government attitude and some effective managers and outstanding people of humanitarian
sciences (for example professor M.N. Gromov) heartily support the idea of a theological faculty (at first a department)
introduction into the system of Russian universities. Yet today it is in the University Rector’ power – whether to
include an obligatory course of “secular theology” (in contemporary Russian conditions – an analogue of the soviet
partcoms dealing with students and lecturers ideological education according to a “communism builders’ codex”).
It is worth to underline that the tradition of cultural space ideologization at the time of Tsar Russia was
pursued by the Russian Orthodox Church, capturing its spiritual achievements in the field of people education in the
regular reports about the parishioners’ participation in the Church services (a confession and Eucharist). On the basis
of these reports as we know the lists of unreliable persons (attending the church service less than once a year or
conscious atheists) were compiled. It appears that the university space was relatively free from such manipulations,
but at the soviet period it was institutionally ideologizationed, which is known to cause a snowballed student and
some lecturers’ interest in the “alternative ideologies” and connected with them spiritual practices (for example the
Orthodoxy, which was not officially banned as a student private matter, but in fact point-blank unacceptable for a
public servant or student – the result of an official announcement of religiosity for a lecturer was at least an exclusion
from the educational sphere; for a student – a “brainwashing” at the meetings up to the exclusion from school or
university).
Religion (in a form of ideology, which is not a synonym of religion [2]) therefore had stayed a relatively
influential sub-cultural system in relation to the national model of education in Russia for a long time – including the
soviet period, when the place of the Orthodox ideology was taken by a “civil religion” – the cult of soviet leaders (an
equivalent of an Ancient Emperor’s cult); a first leaders revolutionary-supporters cult (an equivalent to a Christian
Saints cult) etc. The educational function of this system is obvious – in all cases we see the affirmation of a
personally-meaningful ideal, a pattern for imitation described from the point of view of the set of its moral qualities,
typical ways of behavior and model solution of arising problematic situations.
Contemporary educational space as we noted after a little break for “deideologization” (in fact translating the
values of unrestricted consumption and generally “short period” of hedonism (A.V. Shestopal)) returns to the given
model of ideologization openly religious, leveling anthropological values proper with their religious interpretation. It
should be underlined that the positive potential of the given national educational strategy is obvious. In this case
Russia goes the Chinese (return of the “Confucian values” in the university courses), Turkish and Saudi Arabic
(“Islamic values” in different interpretations) ways. The negative vector of such “religiozation” for Russia is obvious
too and is connected with its policonfessionalism which support the growth of the society polarization in the religious
sphere in science and education – a seemingly far away from such tendencies field.
On the other hand in connection with the development of a contemporary global context and Russia’s
deepening into it, the tendency of forming a small number of big science-based higher education institutions (a kind
of “mega-universities”, founded in the federal districts – Far East, South, Ural etc.) is vivid. These educational
institutions today include as a rule at least five universities; “science schools” (a known “west” name still conforms a
traditional for Russia division – a former faculty). The governing of such unities is utterly difficult. Among the reasons
to it is the fact that the departments – survived up today a little less than “schools” functional unit’s number up to 1020 members as before, but a five times more – 50-100 members. No doubt, the reorganization is aimed to shorten
the number of higher education institutions and the people working there, but also the number of students. The
similar processes of “enlargement” and their consequences we see in school education (as also in the optimization of
health service, the number of birth houses etc.).
Generally the restructuring of national educational system according to the west model has an aim to build a
pragmatically justified line “education – production”. However today we can say that the creation of the optimized
system of rational social expenses on education in this way is damaged by the fact of its commercialization. The
combination of these vectors results first of all in the rise of the cost of education, but not its quality. The attempts to
correct this tendency through the introduction of an ideological filter, consciously forming the value orientations of the
students favourable for the government, stop at the given problems of educational ideologization in the religious way.
What we see now is a vicious circle which can be broken today only by a rigid system of national priorities – able to
interest a great amount of our country citizenry, where the priority of a national programme can be a free high quality
education – it is not a very costly programme for the government especially on the background of a one more
demographic downfall (the war children’s children whose birthday was on the infamous “Pavlov’s reforms” days,
when ration cards and food queues were common).
The next problem concerning Russia’s “adoption” of the global paradigm change is not only connected with
the informatization of educational technologies, but is a kind of the “digitalization” of all contemporary society and
especially the youth life. This tendency is tied with another, often given as the cause of the whole world and Russia’s
“optimization”. It is – the dying interest to education on the background of the enriching it with the complex technique
and equipment and turning it into a more convenient comparing to the previous.
We emphasize: our state’s system in this case has adopted some primarily regressive to its achievements
technologies, though a technical level was certainly raised. First of all it is a proverbial “interactivity”, understood by
the managers as a rule 1) how to use interactive boards; 2) to minimize classroom-based (lecture) lessons and turn a
student-lecture communication into the Internet communication (it is an common freakish way of the “interactivity”
interpretation substituting distance learning and simple independent work imitation by the files downloading).
Science in this case is in jeopardy because it lowers the state educational strategy traditionally supposing
teaching to think, not to learn; in other words to find out and structure some problem zones and have an ability to
make a solution, not to simply repeat something trivial. What concerns the multiplicity of interactive boards, they as a
rule help to decrease the learning level because they are not adjusted to “audists” and “tacktile learners” (those
students whose psychosomatic orientation goes through the auditory and motorial stimulators) suggesting that the
main part of the students – are visual learners, or those who use video-sequences. The infamous modules,
psychologically inconceivable by the students and the reduction of the discussion time of a face-to-face
communication in education at the expense of the presentations and video-courses make a contribution too. Neutral
as it is, this request may easily destroy the steady ways of teaching without making anything new and useful.
One can use all these methods in a more rational way – for example to provide an interactive screen with in
input from the individual student’s electronic media; to introduce time for face-to-face discussions during lections and
seminars as it is customary in the West.
The regional context can be related with the processes at the post-soviet and post-social space including the
tendencies of the Slavonic world (The Balkans [7, 5]). However for the lack of the article space we’ll attend to it later.
To summarize we will mark the following results.
1. Historically there were formed certain educational models of secular neutral and secular ideology-driven
types in Russia.
2. Both these models are used today and developed under the influence of global tendencies and modern
Russian transitives character.
3. Each of the given tendencies has its pros and cons and their analysis needs a detailed study of
contemporary processes.
4. An appeal to the culturology expertize, showing the possible “points of junction” and “discontinuity
points” of the proposed optimization models of the educational transformation can soften the negative
consequences of the unreasoned reforms in the sphere of education.
5. The “points of junction” in this case may be some secular oriented axiological bases, neither denying
any certain spiritually-religious content nor declaring it straightforwardly as a system of ideological bans
and enforcements; and also the further development of the discussion potential of in-class learning and
problem-solving thinking (mentality).
6. The “discontinuity points” may present some religiously-oriented models of pouring universal and
national cultural values into the system of education; they also may be a transition to the exclusively
visual informational models and models imitating interactivity in the form of a lecturer-student Internetcorrespondence, presentations instead of lectures and seminar discussions, a “superspeed” module
teaching programmes model (contrary to the systematic learning which requires a certain psychological
time for both a lecturer and a student).
7. The solution of these problems is impossible without a change of the point of view on education. It
should be looked upon as a mechanism of culture translation and cultural heritage preservation at the
state level. The working out of a national educational programme is considered a costly matter.
However if a society does not think it useful to spend time and money on education, it will be forced to
pay for the overcoming the consequences of its absence - anarchic violence, different forms of
addiction, psychological passivity and social inactivity; life interest loss and in the long run a drastic
sales resistance in all the spheres of economy.
References
[1] Гидденс, Э. Ускользающий мир. Как глобализация меняет нашу жизнь. — М.: Весь мир, 2004. 120 с.
[2] Глаголев В.С. Герметичность религии как проблема социологического исследования / Социология религии
в обществе позднего модерна. Памяти Ю.Ю. Синелиной. Материалы Третьей Международной научной
конференции. 13 сентября 2013. "НИУ БелГУ", 13 сентября 2013 г. / отв. ред. С.Д. Лебедев. - Белгород: ИД
"Белгород", 2013. - С. 77-87.
[3] Громов М.Н., Козлов Н.С. Русская философская мысль 10-17 вв. Москва: Изд-во МГУ, 1990. 288 с.
[4] Кучмаева И.К. Социальные закономерности и механизмы наследования культуры. М.: ГАСК, 2006. 258 с.
[5] Кучмаева И.К., Расторгуев В.Н. Природа самоидентификации Русская культура славянский мир и
стратегия непрерывного образования. М.: Государственная академия славянской культуры. 2004г. 158с.
[6] Луман Н. Мировое время и история систем / Пер. В. Бакусева // Логос, 2004. № 5. С. 131-168.
[7] Силантjева М.В. ПРОJЕКТНИ МЕТОД У СИСТЕМУ "ШКОЛА - ВИСОКА ШКОЛА" // ИСТРАЖИВАНЬА У
ПЕДАГОГИJИ. ГОДИНА III. - СРПСКА АКАДЕМИJА ОБРАЗОВАНЬА. БЕОГРАД, СЕРБИJА. ВИСОКА ШКОЛА
СТРУКОВНИХ СТУДИJА ЗА ОБРАЗОВАНЬЕ ВАСПИТАЧА "МИХАИЛО ПАЛОВ" У ВРШЦУ, СРБИОА. - ВРШАЦ
- БЕОГРАД. 2013, рр.75-88.
[8] Цибулина А.Н., Мальгин А.В. Центральная и Восточная Европы: внутренняя трансформация, адаптация к
интеграционной практике и опыт научного анализа // Восточная Европа. Перспективы. 2011. №2. С. 123-128.