Читать книгу Patriotic Education in Contemporary Russia - Aнна Санина - Страница 6

Discussions about patriotism and patriotic education have arisen in many countries all over the world and in different historical periods. At present, there are plenty of debates about whether or not patriotism should be promoted in schools and how it is related to civic education and nation-building.1 These discussions are of a very complicated nature because they touch on the issues of civic and national identities, civil rights and civic duties, nation-building, and priorities of raising the younger generation. The focal point of these discussions, the concept of patriotism, is itself ambiguous and ideologically loaded. Whether it is discussed within political, social, or ethnic discourse, patriotism is usually addressed either as something unconditionally necessary for the people or as something almost intolerable and obscene.

At its core, patriotism is a philosophical concept. It reflects emotions of love for a particular place, i.e. a region or a country, and a readiness to support the community of people associated with that place.2 Years of debate led to the formation of many concepts of patriotism, justifying the distinction between blind and constructive patriotism,3 active and passive patriotism,4 and blind and symbolic patriotism.5 Despite being constantly criticized and questioned, patriotism nevertheless never disappears from political discourse and public discussions. In spite of globalists’ predictions about citizens without citizenship and civilians without patriotism,6 today’s complicated and interconnected world has not reduced the individual’s need for identification with a country.7 In the globalized world, the “mother country” is still a conventional home for many people. It symbolically embodies their belonging to the family, the community, history, and traditions. Feeling connected to a particular country supports the emotional need to come back “home” and ensure that it is safe and sound. This provides an important basis for answering questions about identity and destiny, encourages a sense of security, and enables a mental defense against the incessant threats of a complicated contemporary world.

However, the sophistication of the concept of patriotism, as well as its utilization in the construction of national ideology, is sometimes reflected in misleading terms: The country is associated with the state, or even with the state authorities. In contrast to the support of the community, the merits of state authorities may not be obvious to the people; hence, the perceived necessity of patriotic education, which is most commonly established and developed to maintain citizen loyalty not to a country, but to the state and its authorities. Patriotic education could be defined as a systematic and state-guided process of establishing the unquestioning and uncritical awareness of certain national values and the behaviors that maintain them. Traditionally, inculcating a spirit of patriotism in the younger generation has been the responsibility of the school, mostly because this educational institution “deals with the socialization of the young into adults and the differential transmission of the cultural heritage of a society from generation to generation.”8

In the framework of patriotic education, the concept of patriotism is often embedded in political doctrines and overwhelmed by political meanings. The ruling authorities commonly try to use it for political mobilization and as a tool to signify their position in society. In this respect, patriotism is an overwhelming concept. Any social meanings that may accompany it are buried under its ideological and political tensions. That is why, despite the continual discussions on patriotic education in many corners of the world9 and its development as an international research subject, it is so complicated to study anything related to patriotism from a sociological point of view.

In some countries, the practice of deploying the ideological dimension of patriotism has become so inherent and historically ingrained that the political and social structures of patriotism are tightly intertwined with each other. The Russian Federation is illustrative of such a situation. Political studies and journalism devoted to understanding patriotism in Russia commonly report that current trends in the development of Russian patriotism suggest ideological reinforcement that aims to disarm any form of criticism, diversity, or officially unapproved distinction, and to promote certain values and attitudes toward the state as well as toward other states perceived as enemies. Expressly or implicitly, they criticize the power elites for ideologizing Russian society and for controlling such an intimate sphere as the education of children. Although this awareness is often justifiable, it is not accurate to attribute all of these tendencies to a master plan of the elites.

Interpretations of patriotism depend not only on the patriotic agenda of the authorities, but also on the cultural and educational experience of the individuals, their family history, culture, and social environment. In other words, the formation of patriotism is played out not only ideologically or politically, but also at the social and even individual level. For some people, patriotism can remain deeply personal throughout their lives, while for others, patriotism is suggestive of ideological manipulation and political violence.10 In any case, the social meanings of patriotism will differ between “state patriotism”11 and “state-sponsored patriotism.”12 The concept of patriotism has “extensive use” in society, showing a great adaptability to both individual needs and collective uses.13 That is why its development in the form of patriotic education “does not necessarily lead to increased engagement in support of the authorities” and “does not guarantee blind faith in the state.”14

A particular field of patriotism formation is established within the social structure of educational systems and the activity of teachers, school administrators, and local educational authorities. A study of these agents, their attitudes, intentions, and values may uncover the hidden social structures of citizen-raising that are not as obvious as the ideological and political processes. Ro­wenna Baldwin, referencing Ulf Hannerz,15 suggests that while the educational system could be considered a facilitator of meaning between the state and citizens, it is still involved in the “wider process of the production, representation and reception of ideas of the nation, both in the present and in the past.”16 This is especially true for Russia, since Russian teachers perceive education as made up of two equally important components: academic education (obrazovanie) and upbringing (vospitanie). As Anatoli Rapoport highlights,

Russian pedagogical tradition assumes that both of these components, although practically interdependent, can develop independently through their specific forms and methods. Clearly, academic education is focused on providing students with knowledge and skills, whereas moral education (upbringing) is focused on moral development through teaching values and manners. The Russian term for moral development translates to spiritual development, though the expression is almost completely deprived of its religious connotation.17

Today, there are 42,500 public schools in Russia, attended by 14.5 million students. In addition, there are about 50,000 public kindergartens, attended by 7 million pupils under 6 years old.18 Almost all of these children, both in kindergartens and public schools, are included in the process of patriotic education. Compared to Soviet times, these modern processes are fragmentary and poorly integrated into the educational system, but the way in which they are developing is very illustrative. School-based patriotic education in contemporary Russia is an actual example of how specifically social structures can rebuild a political institution. In the 1990s, it seemed as though the historical model of Soviet patriotism would never return; however, in this century, its revival is becoming more and more apparent. It turns out that the model’s long-term preservation within school structures did not require a regulatory framework, clear institutional structure, or money. The Soviet model of patriotic education was preserved by teachers and school administrators, who considered it an indispensable part of their work. Patriotic education, having hidden at the margins of teachers’ values and attitudes for the last 20 years, can now easily grow into a giant formal structure. For this to occur requires the assistance of the Russian state, which is already organizing youth movements, establishing all-Russian patriotic lessons, and setting the rules for national celebrations. The initial stage of these processes, however, developed inside the educational institutions.