Ethoses of education and the modernization of the Russian society

Release:

2018, Vol. 2. №4

Title: 
Ethoses of education and the modernization of the Russian society


For citation: Pavlov A. P., Pavlov P. A. 2018. “Ethoses of education and the modernization of the Russian society”. Siberian Socium, vol. 2, no 4, pp. 70-80. DOI: 10.21684/2587-8484-2018-2-4-70-80

About the authors:

Aleksander P. Pavlov, Cand. Sci. (Philos.), Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Siberian Federal University (Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation); pavloff56@list.ru

Pavel A. Pavlov, Cand. Sci. (Hist.), Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Siberian Federal University (Krasnoyarsk, Russian Federation); savel-b@yandex.ru

Abstract:

This article analyzes education as productive resources of the Russian society in the modernization conditions in the early 2000s. The authors believe that these resources lie mainly in the educational sphere, precisely, in the educational ethos. Thus, this article studies educational space as a sphere of creative challenges and opportunities for young people in the modernizing Russian society. The authors differentiate the terms “educational space” and “learning space”. In the educational space, a young person acquires knowledge necessary for his or her life. In the learning space, a young person is formed as a participant of society reproduction — a social actor. However, the authors believe that the existing practices and learning methods are insufficiently oriented at the reproduction of actors conforming to the requirements of social modernization. The modernization sets new demands to the reproduction mechanism of the educational medium — autopoiesis, which is the society’s ability to reproduce its own basic components, thus generating and reproducing another society. This article aims to demonstrate the possibilities for improving educational efficiency as an autopoiesis system. These possibilities lie in the structure of educational ethos, studied in detail (i. e. its phenomenon and peculiar features) in this work. The authors interpret educational ethos as a system of ethical and ontological relations, which involve the young people into the processes of educational autopoiesis as actors.

References:

  1. Bakshtanovskiy V. I., Sogomonov Yu. V. 2006. Introduction to Applied Ethics. Tyumen: Research Institute for Applied Ethics of the Industrial university of Tyumen. [In Russian]
  2. Vakhshtayn V. 2015. The Case of Everyday Life: the Sociology in the Judicial Precedents. Moscow; Saint Petersburg: Tsentr gumanitarnykh initsiativ. [In Russian]
  3. Kemerov V. E. 1998. “Classical, non-classical, postclassical”. In: Sovremennyy filosofskiy slovar. 2nd edition, revised. London; Frankfurt am Main; Paris; Luxemburg; Moscow; Minsk: Panprint. [In Russian]
  4. Lyubimov L. L. 2009. “Fading educational ethos”. Voprosy obrazovaniya, no 1, pp. 199-210. [In Russian]
  5. Luman N. 2004. Society as a Social System. Moscow: Logos. [In Russian]
  6. Maturana H. R., Varela F. J. 2001. The Tree of Knowledge: The Biological Roots of Human Understanding. Moscow: Progress-Traditsiya. [In Russian]
  7. Moles A. 2008. Sociodynamics of Culture. Translated from French. 3rd edition. Moscow: LKI. [In Russian]
  8. Prigozhin A. I. 2006. “The Russian Ethos: Treasure or Cure?”. Obshchestvennyye nauki sovremennost’, no 2, pp. 29-40. [In Russian]
  9. Ritzer G. 2002. Modern Sociological Theory. 5th edition. Saint Petersburg: Piter. [In Russian]
  10. Trufanov D. O., Pavlov A. P. 2011. Life Trajectories of Urban Youth of the Krasnoyarsk Territory (Based on a Sociological Study). Krasnoyarsk: Sankt-Peterburgskiy institut vneshneekonomicheskikh svyazey, ekonomiki i prava. [In Russian]
  11. Walker T. D. 2018. Teach Like Finland: 33 Simple Strategies for Joyful Classrooms. Moscow: Alpina Pablisher. [In Russian]
  12. Hübner B. 2000. Beliebigkeitsethos und Zwangsästhetik. Minsk: Propilei. [In Russian]
  13. Benedict R. 1934. Patterns of Culture. Boston; New York.
  14. Eisenstadt S. N. 1973. Tradition, Change, and Modernity. New York: John Wiley & Son.
  15. Latour B. 2000. “When things strike back: a possible contribution of ‘science studies’ to the social sciences”. British Journal of Sociology, vol. 51, nо 1, pр. 107-123.
  16. Maturana H. R. 1975. “The organization of the living: a theory of the living organization”. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol. 7, рp. 313-332.
  17. Popper K. R. 1979. “Epistemology without a Knowing Subject”. In: Popper K. R. Objective Knowledge. An Evolutionary Approach, ch. 3, рp. 106-152. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  18. Shils E. 1961. “Centre and periphery”. In: The Logic of Personal Knowledge: Essays Presented to Michael Polanyi, рp. 117-130. Routledge & Kegan Paul.