Mikhail Nemtsev,
social anthropologist,
Lecturer in Novosibirsk State Technological University,
Graduate of the “Liberal Arts School”
Nemtsev.m@gmail.com,
mnemtsev.livejournal.com
It seems easy to answer the question in the heading: evidently, intellectual class grows itself in its disciples and followers! However, the evidence has “blind spots”, which we should discuss. We shall look at what is going on with the Russian University as the cultural phenomenon, and observe the contemporary educational initiatives what do sustain and develop tasks usually considered true tasks of university education.
As a member of the chair of sociology, I write pro domo sua. Perhaps, the alleged “high education crisis” is more observable and discernible in so called “humanities” than in other areas.
During 2007-2008, two important events happened. One of them is the confrontation between a student activists’ group on the sociological department of MSU, while the second is a temporary closure of classes and all other activities in European University in St.Petersburg. One would not recognize the events on the background of big transformations, when the entire educational politics of the state changes fundamentally. Nonetheless, I think these events are genuine “signs” of the politics.
In February, 2007, students of the sociology department of MSU rose up against the disastrously poor quality of their education along with the atmosphere of the department. The group of activists[1] had several successes: they managed an official meeting with the rector, performed several public protest acts (including street actions), acquired certain popularity in Russian Internet, trained themselves in fighting against arbitrariness of the department authorities. Their main “target” was the dean of the department prof. V. Dobren’kov, who just about that time was captured on a trivial plagiarism by certain allies of the students[2]. The events tipped up discussions among professional community in which sociological education not only in that department, but also in national universities in general[3], soon became the main topic.
It is important to realize that currently, one and half year after, the situation keeps status quo. The students still fight, the dean still runs the office, and various committees do their job, making the situation clearer without changing it. No mass discussion of the content and quality of sociological education programs, not making the question more general – has developed even among professionals. Those who “in the topic”, presented their opinions, and shrugged their shoulders after…
It is important to mention, nonetheless, the very precedent of the first in the contemporary Russian university history, initiating of the public discussion of the quality and competitiveness of the education they ought to receive. Meanwhile, the “silence in the Internet” shows absence of any action to the precedent form the students of other Russian universities.
The second of these “meaningful events” was a temporary closing of European University in St.Petersburg, what was one of the best research centers in Russia (or even the only, as in the field of gender social studies, for example). In 30 of January, the University was closed due to fire safety reasons (it resided a large building in the center of the city, which was built up in 18 century and would not fit all the contemporary regulations). The whole work of the university was broken, and threat of total stopping its activity followed. In February, public street actions of the students emerged in the city, while the university’s authorities held complicated negotiations. The Russian Internet was droned: various interpretations of the shadow factors and background figures were widely discussed there, for it was hardly possible to believe that the fire safety was the true and the only cause of the event. As a result of the negotiations (and, perhaps, under pressure of the public activity), the work of the University was continued in 21 of March.
Happily finished, as it was, the story discloses concrete unreliability, unreservedness of developing educational institutions and schools in contemporary Russia. One I have heard that the best method to identify the level of business in Russia is to identify the level of state official who can close it. Or, rather, to identify the level of administration, where the decision is to be made (be it municipal, regional or President Administration level). It the case of education or academic institution, its meaning for the society is being measured by the extend, to which the society recognizes the institutions’ problems as its own. Are these problems only of the institution, or of the professional community, or of the society? In the European University case, the reaction of the professional was open, immediate and negative, as it was. Nevertheless, what about the answer of the rest of the society?
These examples give a chance to think about so notoriously mentioned “crisis of education in Russia”(I mean higher education, and all the rest branches as well). In Russia, the so called “Bologna process” as well as national perspectives of this approach, is one of the most discussed topics. Meanwhile, it is often neglected, that the huge number of institutions working as “University” in Russia, factually have nothing to do with the “Idea of University” and, in fact, must not use the title at all[4]. I should state that it is a complicated and methodologically unclear task to conceive what is contemporary Russian “high education,” in sociological and cultural terms. The appearance is deceitful. Almost every Russian town has a set of various private educational institutions, that offer distant or even (less rarely) day program leading to the diploma of a demanded profession. Their headquarters sometimes find residence in incredible places. Quite often, these institutions officially operate as local branches of “prestigious” Universities of big cities. They can have no auditoriums for students. Their students-“clients” hardly “go there to study, as well as “teachers” hardly ‘teach” there, they both do there something else[5].
Speaking against the common intonation of regret for decline of higher and other education in Russia, I want to argue that the situation in the education is a regular one. Russian society has just that kind of education that needs. University teachers are “underpaid,” because there is no demand for qualified and professional educators. The “science” they develop so often has only local importance, if any at all. The education they provide is not required to be qualified, thus the very quality is so poor (not vise versa!). The objectives of the students are not the objectives implied by the “idea of the University”. They do not behave themselves as subjects of higher education. Often they still have aims and views of high school pupils, but some of them have no certain objectives at all (there sociological evidence to prove it[6]). As a result, the overwhelming majority of the students are not able to have any demand for education, thus they would continue to get what they get today. This system “society –University” is very stable. It is expectable, that attempts to refine it, combining, for example, one Big University from several regular universities (creating Federal University) do not promise a lot. I must repeat that the situation is normal and satisfies the folk. Here one may even seductive intention to recollect the famous Hegel’s’ proverb that “all real is reasonable”: if the majority of population and the very consumers of these so called “educational services” are satisfied by the situation – perhaps, the situation is satisfactory and it must be the way it is now.
However, this situation is not a “normal” one. There is at least one society in the society that cannot afford to be calm about it. I mean “intellectual class” –the big group if people, educated and mainly employed as intellectual and “white collar” workers who had been called “intelligentsia” in classic times. The fact is that the education system is the main institution that reproduces the class.
I am far from a thought that all persons who hold diplomas automatically join the “intellectual class.” It means, rather, that University and Academia (in the broad, or European, sense of the word) is the social institute in whose framework the reproduction of the values, interests, in general - the life world of the “intellectual class” is being reproduced. This class, University and academia make a united dynamic system in the contemporary society of the “high Modern” where traditional mechanisms of reproduction of refined and intellectualized life worlds have lost their authority and mass influence. Thus, the relations in the system of higher education should be a matter of immediate interest not only for people dealing with education but for others as well. Well, the degree of society’s attention to this area of social life has been already mentioned above!
The higher education, as a social institution, certainly executes several of its social functions. It successfully socializes youngsters, providing them some knowledge and expertise and helping them to upgrade somehow their competitiveness on the labor market, where any diploma works as an entrance ticket. It provides employment for professionals (saving these way “true” universities from final catastrophe in personnel). However: they hardly reproduce the intellectual class, even minimally. The nearest consequence is gradual “trivialization” in and devastation in intellectual dimension of mass processes in Russia. Of course, “strong” departments with ambitious chairs will not disappear totally (it is easy even for an outsider to see the difference of intellectual quality of events and practices on different chairs inside of one university). Intellectual networks, clubs, communities with solid theoretical perspectives and fresh and fruitful approaches develop. These communities so often consist of graduates of these aforementioned departments. These parts of intellectual networks are sustained by efforts of enthusiasts (intellectual entrepreneurs), and is comparatively autonomous it their affairs with other institutions of knowledge reproduction. Many intellectuals are oriented towards this type of intellectual self-expression[7].
However, if someone, having developed strong arguments and conceptions, having produced new and solid answers to certain “eternal questions” during disputes in such club, writes a wonderful article – who is going to read it? Would it be only her friends along with the narrow circle of the same club?
Thus, we have an open contradiction here. On the one hand, the situation in Russian higher education is an adequate reflection of the whole society’s condition, its self-attitude and self-expectation; therefore, the situation must be recognized as “satisfactory” one. On the other hand, it is “unsatisfactory” for one, still not very influential, but socially sufficient group, which is the “intellectual class.” There are two aspects of the situation's meaning for the class: firstly, it is a factor forming an attitude to any intellectual activity and intellectual labor in the (Russian) society; secondly, the very re-production if the class is under question here. I am far from a conclusion that the reproduction may be aborted somehow – it was not possible even for Soviet power with all its brutally violent methods of 1920-1930s[8]. The situation definitely does not correlate with “social ideals” of the intellectual classes. I will repeat myself here, stating that the future of Russian universities is only “university corporation” business, but the whole “intellectual class” must care for it.
Why should not we expect, that not only in the area of contemporary Russian university new and effective methods of the intellectual class reproduction would be found? More precisely, there are other institutions and institutional areas, where the process goes on; more than that, I dare to say that the process goes there much more effectively and “skillfully” than in a regular mass university.
A new educational tradition has been developed in the USSR and next in Russia up to the end of the previous century. Its roots go back to Post-revolutionary pedagogical experiments (I mean such personalities as Lev Vygotsky, Petr Blonsky – but, I must mention it, not Anton Makarenko!). This educational tradition became most known under the name “innovative education,” and to a great extend develops itself in the framework of so-called “activity-based pedagogic[9].” As educational programs gathered by this educational movement, they have the next features:
1) the programs are grounded on an articulated philosophical and anthropological position, and are targeted primarily to develop the philosophy and anthropology, implementing them in the field of education. Thus, the conceptions are often discussed and disputed widely, there are special texts presenting them, and any effective participation in these programs urges the participant to develop their understanding of the philosophy and anthropology;
2) the programs are intended to develop in the mind of their young participants a special [ so called “subjective”,] attitude to their own education and strategy of obtaining the education, and the forming of the attitude factually measures the effectiveness of that program, consequently
3) the content of the education in the programs must be conceptualized as consisting of meta-subjects and meta-principles. It juxtaposes the programs to the mass school and mass university alike, where pupils and students still sit on subject-targeted lessons.
These programs firstly appear as a civil initiative (in the true sense of the word), managed by people who are, in the beginning, just a “group of enthusiasts.” This way, the national education scene is being formed “from below.” The problem of demand for such education is still the key problem of the programs’ survival – there is no stable educational demand for them yet. The state is interested in this type of educational activity only rarely[10], usually having nothing to do with them, therefore these initiatives very often are mingled around “additional,” or supplementary education, where the organizer and manager have comparably more autonomy than is a regular school.
During the last years, a distinct self-organizing process shows itself in several regions of the country. This reality is still far from relevant characterization in terms of history, philosophy and cultural studies – that is why it does not “exist” yet for many researchers and seemingly interested explorers. It is the reality where genuinely effective conditions for the reproduction of consciousness and life worlds of the «intellectual class» are being established. It is possibly to propose that the system of supplementary education for youngsters (who are not already teenagers, but not adults yet, who are just facing their “second socialization”) is the most effective environment where this social mission is performed now, along with mass universities, and obviously instead of them.
Surely, the total number of disciples (participants) of these projects vanishes in the scale of the country, thus is true influence of these institutions is weak. However, the total number of “intellectual class” as such is not a big one.
Dear Sirs intellectuals! These out-of-town schools, these supplementary classes, clubs and meetings are the place where are taught and grown exactly that people who must buy your books and take your considerations in several years! As far as the ongoing generation of “intellectual class” must care for the next generation, so far this area of so called ‘supplementary education” is an important target of your attention and care nowadays!
In this issue of our journal, we attempted to look at the double-sided problem of the transformation of contemporary university. In the interview of Vladimir Knyaginin and editorial article by (the article is compiled from works of Ronald Barnett the contemporary challenges that the university faces and the responses it offers, are discussed. A university must answer social transformation adequately, and sustain “the idea of university” in the same time. Katsiaryna Handrabura and Sergey Zuev critically discuss the experience of such “response” existing in the country. Three following articles are collected to provide a glance at the alternative domain of other liberal (humanitarian) education, where, as we think, the ideas, traditionally left for the university, are being realized now. They narrate about programs of intensive school that exist in Western Siberia – in Novosibirsk (A. Schetnikov) and Krasnoyarsk region (S. Ermakov). Gathering in one line materials that touch subjects usually separated in public discussions gives a chance to look at the transformation of Russian national system of education in complex, breaking the institutional boards, already dismissed by the changing life.
[1] The group received a rather strange for Russian eye and ear name “OD-group” Their website: www.od-group.org.
[2] Natalie Demina Nauka “copy paste” [‘copy paste’ science] - http://www.polit.ru/analytics/2007/08/24/plagiat.html; Nenazvannye soavtory V. Dobren’kova i A. Kravschenko [unmentioned co-autors of V. Dobren’kov and A. Kravchenko] - www.polit.ru/science/2007/05/28/plagiarism.popup.html
[3] A summary of the disputes: “Krizis socfaka MGU ili rossiyskoy sociologii?” {Do we have the Crisis only in the Sociology department of MSU or in Russian sociology in general?] – http://www.polit.ru/author/2008/01/24/socfak.html.
[4] Mished, Loucienne The Idea of University – in: Higher Education Policy, vol. 4, n.1, 1991, p. 45-48; Gessen, Sergey Osnovy pedagogiki (vvedenie v prikladnyyu filosofiyu) [Introduction to Pedagogic (essentials of applied philosophy)] M.; Osnova-Press, 1995, p. 310-327. Look also at the compilation of Sergey Gessen and Ronald Barnett’s material, and the interview of Vladimir Knyaginin in this issue.
[5] Kopylov G. G. Chestnaya rabota {working without cheating] – in: Parallel 60 2007, ¹4 (27). – Ñ.118-122. (Only in Russian)
[6] Plusnin Yu. M. Prisutstvovat’, a ne uchit’sya: troechniki i otlichniki v nashikh universitetakh [To be in class, but not to study: “C’-students and “A” students in our universities] // Voprosy Obrasovaniya. 2007, no. 7. P. 276- 292.
[7] For sure, there are strong presuppositions for this type of self-realization in Russia. “Kitchen circle” has more options to survive in any age, than a “University circle”. However, many people presumably are not satisfied by “Kitchen circle” only.
[8] A very bright, although yet comparably unknown description of the events: Smirnov A. Zagovor nedorezannykh [the complot of those who were not cut to death] – http://magazines.russ.ru/zerkalo/2006/27/sm08.html. It was not just a contingent feature of dictatorships of the 20 century, that they put fighting against “entrenched in the universities” intelligentsia as their special task (as it was out by Mao in China and Enver Hodzha in Albania as well).
[9] Speaking about subjects if this kind, any translator feels difficulties with translation of terms, which are common and ordinary in Russian language but hardly have analogues in English. You know, Russian philosophical language has German roots. Additional difficulty here is that recent pedagogical experience I speak about is unknown for English-speaking auditorium, thus even the basic terms allegedly do not have commonplace English analogues yet.
[10] Popov A., Proskurovskaya I. (eds.) Otkrytaya model’ dopolnitel’nogo obrazovaniya regiona [The model of open supplementary education of the region]. Krasnoyarsk, 2004.
