Society of Russian Literature. Creation. “Society of Russian Literature”: congress participants speak
On May 25, 2016, at the First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature, a meeting of the section “Teaching Russian language and literature in universities as a strategic priority of educational policy in a multinational state” was held. The organizers and moderators of the section were Dr. philological sciences, professor, vice-rector of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov T.V. Kortava and Doctor of Philology, Professor, Dean of the Faculty of Philology of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen N.L. Shubina.
The meeting of the section “Teaching Russian language and literature in universities as a strategic priority of educational policy in a multinational state” was attended by 72 people from 53 educational, scientific and public organizations.
Among them are members of the Russian Language Council under the President of the Russian Federation, the Federal Educational and Methodological Association for Linguistics and Literary Studies, headed by Academician of the Russian Academy of Education L.A. Verbitskaya, representatives of M.V. Lomonosov Moscow State University, St. Petersburg State University, six federal universities (North Caucasus, Crimean, Far Eastern, Southern, Baltic, Northeastern), leading national research and classical universities (Higher School of Economics, Moscow State Pedagogical University , Saratov State University named after N.G. Chernyshevsky, Voronezh State University, Ryazan State University named after S.A. Yesenin, Mari State University, Syktyvkar State University named after Pitirim Sorokin, Moscow State Linguistic University, All-Russian State University of Justice, Perm State University, Oryol State University, Academy civil protection EMERCOM of Russia, Moscow City Open University, Bashkir State University, Kostroma State University named after N.A. Nekrasov, Yaroslavsky state university named after P.G. Demidov, Russian Economic University named after G.V. Plekhanov, Peoples' Friendship University of Russia, Russian State Pedagogical University named after A.I. Herzen and others).
At the section meeting, 20 reports were made, including a report by the rector of the North Caucasus Federal University A.A. Levitskaya and the rector of the North Ossetian State Pedagogical Institute L.A. Kuchieva.
On May 26, 2016 in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions with the participation of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin, a plenary session of the First Congress of the “Society of Russian Literature” was held under the chairmanship of Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'.
Speaker of the State Duma of the Russian Federation S.E. made a welcoming speech. Naryshkin and the Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation D.V. Livanov.
At the plenary meeting, the presidium of the Society of Russian Literature, consisting of 75 members, was elected. Among them is the rector of the Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, academician V.A. Sadovnichy, Rector of St. Petersburg State University Professor N.M. Kropachev, Rector of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Academician A.V. Torkunov, Rector of the Ivan Fedorov Moscow State University of Printing Arts, Professor K.V. Antipov, I. O. Rector of the Literary Institute named after A.M. Gorky Professor A.N. Varlamov, I. O. Rector of Moscow State Linguistic University I.V. Manokhin.
The Bureau of the Society of Russian Literature consists of 13 people, including Academician A.V. Torkunov.
Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' became the head of the established Society of Russian Literature, which will be a new discussion platform for discussing issues of teaching the Russian language and literature.
“You all know very well what kind of public discussions are taking place in the country. How divided public opinion and the opinion of the expert community on a number of issues related to the teaching of literature and the Russian language from the point of view of the attitude towards the ongoing education reform. The scale of this reform, its severity, goal-setting, perhaps even the political and cultural consequences may be such that this discussion cannot be limited only to departments and expert communities,” the head of the Russian Orthodox Church said on Wednesday at a meeting of the founding meeting of the Society of Russian Literature.
According to him, President Vladimir Putin offered him to head the Society of Russian Literature.
In addition, during the meeting, the Patriarch expressed concern about the results in Russian language and literature that Russian schoolchildren demonstrate in last years at the Unified State Exam. In his opinion, this speaks “of the low level of development of society.” “What is acceptable in underdeveloped countries cannot be acceptable in the country of Pushkin, Lermontov, Dostoevsky, in a country where hard times illiteracy was overcome in a country that has reached a very high level of education,” the primate of the Russian Orthodox Church is convinced.
The Society of Russian Literature included professors and teachers from the Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Institute of Russian Language named after A.S. Pushkin, Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov, Higher School of Economics, Literary Institute, director of VGTRK Oleg Dobrodeev, writers Sergei Shargunov, Zakhar Prilepin, Yuri Polyakov, poet Yuri Kublanovsky, filmmakers Nikita Mikhalkov and Stanislav Govorukhin, as well as many public and cultural figures, scientists.
Alexander Prokhanov comments on the event:
With interest and deep sympathy I learned about the creation of the Society of Russian Literature. It is also interesting that this is being done under the auspices of the Church, under the auspices of the growing Orthodox worldview, which is increasingly replacing nihilism, depressive consciousness, and deliberate corruption of the Russian language. This initiative is extremely necessary against the backdrop of a very powerful cohort that is engaged not just in literature and philology, but is a huge ideological combine seeking to mobilize a liberal project in Russia. This project is in Lately retreats, opening up space for the state, imperial world consciousness. But this influence is still very modest, and the liberal crowd, no, no, and demonstrates its ability to control cultural space Russia. Consider the recent statement of the PEN Club in defense of Savchenko, which resembles a powerful ideological invasion that threatens the very existence of the Russian state. Therefore, the creation of this Society is a phenomenon of national importance.
But like an artist, like a person experienced in all the vicissitudes literary processes over the past thirty to forty years, I also have concerns. Russian literature carries within itself many factions, mixtures, trends, which turned our literature into a phenomenon that contains the complexity of the universe; in it at the same time the plans of the Lord sparkle and the forces of devilish darkness curl. I'm afraid of church tutelage modern literature would not result in strict censorship, because many Christian postulates are very far from the hidden and complex laboratories in which novels or poems are born.
I am interested to know how the Society will deal with Tolstoy, who is still, despite the lapse of time and time, an unloved and unwanted writer for the modern church elite. How will the Society perceive the grandiose culture of the Silver Age, in which there is enough ungodly things for the church. The culture of the Russian Silver Age is the precious, unique “Inonia” of Yesenin, the creations of the Symbolists, which in many ways can be interpreted as courtly, erotic, which contradicts the ideas of the Church.
It seems to me that the Society of Russian Literature should not turn into a factory of censored texts. There is a huge problem - to find a language that connects the Church with young people, who are often corrupted, confused, and speak in slang. Our parish priests, in their sermons, which, as a rule, are worthy and deeply canonical, often do not find access to the hearts of young, exalted people. Therefore, the creation of this Society is in itself beneficial. It seems to me that the Society should join a broader movement of Russian writers of various directions and views, which resists the monstrous onslaught of liberal nihilism. And if one of the goals of the Society is to counter aggressive, caustic, acidic liberal energy, then it must be adequate. Antidotes must be found for liberal poisons. A tip filled with light must be pointed against the darkness, like the spear of Peresvet. And this movement must be acutely social and, if you like, bloody, because Russian literature after 1991 was pricked by liberal hatred.
I am also surprised by the composition of the assembly. Of course, Nikita Mikhalkov, who polemicized with the Patriarch, is a beacon of our culture. But Nikita Sergeevich is a director, not a novelist or philologist. I don’t understand why this ensemble did not include, for example, Vladimir Lichutin, the real creator of today’s and tomorrow’s Russian language, to whom even enemies take off their hats. And I, a sinner, probably have nothing to do with literature, I don’t know how to express my thoughts, I haven’t written a single novel. We, Russian writers, who have been fighting for Russian literature for three decades, are disappointed that the Church today has joined this movement, and battle veterans who managed to defend our values suddenly find themselves on the sidelines of the Society.
Dedicated to the creation of the Society of Russian Literature. His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' made a report.
Society of Russian Literature
About existing initiatives
Despite the difficulties our country is experiencing today, much is being done to pay attention to cultural life our people. In my opinion, very creative undertakings and projects are emerging, many of them relying on the experience of predecessors who, through joint efforts, achieved important results in areas that are significant to society. Thus, in 2012, through the efforts of the state, scientists and public figures, the Russian historical society, which before the revolution was the locomotive of study and popularization national history. Four years ago, the Russian Military Historical Society was created, educating the younger generation using the examples of the military valor of our ancestors. The activities of the Russian Geographical and many other scientific societies are actively developing.
In 1992, on the initiative of Academician D.S. Likhachev, the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature was revived, whose meetings began to be held in the House-Museum of Marina Tsvetaeva. The society was active largely thanks to the extraordinary energy and enthusiasm of its secretary Raisa Nikolaevna Kleimenova. But, unfortunately, after her death in 2010, the organization practically ceased its activities, according to at least visible on a national scale.
Join forces
Considering the scale of changes that have occurred over these six years in our society and education, I consider it appropriate and timely to give the Society of Literature Lovers new life, filling his agenda with consideration of urgent tasks. And we have gathered today to combine our efforts in preserving perhaps the most important segments national treasure- literature and the Russian language, which are a reliable foundation for the successful development of Russia not only in the 21st century, but, if God bless human history, for many centuries to come. Of course, both the Russian language and literature should be perceived as the most important elements of the national education system.
Traditional school
The traditional Russian school is an integral part of Russian civilization, the main formative principle of which historically is the spiritual and moral criterion, the spiritual and moral basis. As the Primate of the Church, I cannot help but note that our civilization has largely grown from the Christian understanding of the essence of being, from Orthodox faith, nurturing that beauty people's soul, which is imprinted in Russian literature and art. Cultivating a love for a virtuous life from the very beginning early childhood was the basis of pedagogy. Amazing - virtuous life like an indispensable condition personality formation! The agreement of the spiritual principles of education in the family and school was the key to successful moral education the younger generation, and there was no opposition - what was taught at school was taught at home.
Domestic education assumed the development, as they said in the old days, of “the mind and abilities of the soul” with the help, on the one hand, of the exact sciences, especially mathematics, and on the other hand, the Russian language, classical literature, history, ancient and modern languages, and the Law of God. All this formed a healthy national identity, a high level of morality and, as a result, loyalty to one’s homeland.
Similar associations existed in Russia before. As I already said today, in 1811 the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature was formed in Russia, with the goal of “promoting the success of Russian literature as the main means of spreading education.” At the meetings of the Society, F.I. presented their first experiments. Tyutchev and A.I. Polezhaev. One of the founders of the Society, Vasily Lvovich Pushkin, read poems by his nephew Alexander at meetings. Through the efforts of the Society, which united scientists and writers, government and public figures, over the 119 years of its existence, thousands of outstanding works of Russians were published literary critics and linguists, domestic philological education has become one of the most successful in the world, and in-depth study of the best works of Russian literature has become firmly established in school education. Here is a wonderful example of public initiative and the development of a school as a state institution. It is thanks to this that, despite all the trials and changes that befell Russian society during the Soviet period, it was possible to preserve and develop the highest culture and not lose continuity with the thousand-year-old national tradition.
The school that survived “laboratory methods”
The domestic school of the Soviet period, having experienced separation from the Church, experienced the introduction of a “class approach” to education, various kinds of “laboratory methods” of teaching, which my mother told me about with horror. As far as I remember, it was about the fact that not everyone prepares for lessons individually, but “in the laboratory,” that is, all together. This means that someone was placing commas, and someone was chasing pigeons or doing something else at that time important matters. As a result, someone knew something, but, in general, the generation that studied in schools in the 20s and early 30s was illiterate, including literary illiterate. However, in the pre-war years they returned to the pre-revolutionary tradition of teaching, or at least took decisive steps. The principles of scientific and systematic approach to education and an orientation towards a harmoniously developed personality began to be reaffirmed. The Soviet secondary school began to structurally correspond to the imperial gymnasium, borrowing a lot from it, including the completeness of teaching general education disciplines.
Any Soviet schoolchild could easily recite by heart Tatyana’s letter, an excerpt from Borodino, quote Griboyedov, Dostoevsky, Nekrasov, Tolstoy, Gorky, as I recently became convinced of while walking along the embankment of the Strait of Magellan before going to Antarctica and talking with members of the delegation. We vied with each other to quote “The Song of the Storm Petrel” - after all, even older people still had something left from those very years of schooling. By reading these works and comprehending them, children learned about the world, they formed ideas about good and evil, about truth and lies, about decency and crime, they assimilated the experience of previous generations, developed a culture of speech and thinking, acquired artistic taste; finally, they became familiar with national history.
Literature and cultural self-identification of the individual
In Russia, literature has traditionally been entrusted with a special high mission in the field of intellectual, aesthetic, spiritual and moral development of the individual. Our predecessors understood that the native language and literature are involved in the formation of a person’s cultural self-identification and provide a connection with the history of the native people, with previous generations. Without this connection, cultural, and therefore value continuity is destroyed. After all, a people is a community of people, but not only living ones, but also a community of present and past generations. The concept of “people” unites people both horizontally - living today, and along the historical vertical.
What has been said is true, but not only in relation to the Russian language and literature, but also in general in relation to school as a concept and institution.
I will not hide that I am concerned about the growing number of requests from the most different people- parents and teachers, cultural figures and scientists who are sounding the alarm due to the sharp decline in the knowledge of schoolchildren, especially in the field of literature and the Russian language. Literacy is rapidly declining - to be convinced of this, just read posts on social networks. We gladly welcome the return of the practice of writing essays to school, but we cannot yet call the situation in education rosy. We have ceased to be, as I already said, one of the most reading countries, and the Unified State Exam score in the Russian language has been lowered.
What does this indicate and what consequences could it have? Of course, a schoolboy who does not know his language and is not familiar with national culture and, first of all, to literature, breaks away from its roots. It is more difficult for him to realize and, even more so, to feel involvement along that same historical vertical with his people, with the great events of the past, to share moral, spiritual and cultural ideals with national heroes and outstanding personalities.
Modern society is accustomed to saying that the younger generation is individualistic, pragmatic, has poor command of words, and does not like to read. I get to talk to young people and I see their eyes light up when you talk about examples from the past, including literary examples when they suddenly learn something that, unfortunately, they did not learn about at school. There is a keen interest in all this, but it cannot be otherwise. We must not exclude the possibility that genetic heredity carries over not only physical or mental potencies, but also inclinations and even ideals formed by previous generations. So what needs to be done to unlock these potencies? We need to help children, and I think it is very important that this help begins at school, including by developing a serious approach to teaching the Russian language and literature.
I believe that the Society being created, consisting, among other things, of well-known specialists in the field of Russian language and literature, will be able to contribute to solving the problems that the school faces in the field of teaching these disciplines. It is known that today certain ideas are proposed for public discussion that have both their supporters and opponents. It is good that different ideas are being proposed, but it is very important that there be some place that is neutral and supportive enough to allow for competent and respectful debate so that solutions can be reached that meet the aspirations of many people, solutions that will really help our school to overcome the undoubted crisis and reach a level of teaching the Russian language and literature that will greatly contribute not just to the revival, but also to the further progressive development of our culture and, perhaps most importantly, progressive moral, spiritual development individuals, so that future generations of Russians will be able to distinguish good from evil, truth from falsehood, decency from crime, so that they will be able to build a peaceful, just and prosperous country. And may God help us in this.
Resolution of the founding meeting of the Society of Russian Literature
1. Problems of teaching literature and the Russian language in modern Russian school raised in reports and discussions at constituent assembly Russian literature societies require broad professional and public discussion.
2. A decision was made to create the Society of Russian Literature.
3. Goals and objectives of the society:
Consolidation of the efforts of scientists, teachers, cultural figures, the general public to preserve the leading role of literature and the Russian language in the education of the younger generation, strengthening a single cultural and educational space, development best traditions domestic liberal arts education, cultural and educational activities.
4. The meeting participants take the initiative to hold a congress of teachers of literature and the Russian language and a forum of the parent community in order to develop a coordinated position on the most pressing and current problems school philological education.
5. At the next meeting of the Society of Russian Literature, present the results of a professional and public discussion of the identified problems related to the teaching of literature and the Russian language in a modern Russian school.
Press service of the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus'
On May 25-26, the First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature (ORS), a newly created public organization headed by Patriarch Kirill, took place in Moscow. On the first day of the congress, the work was organized in sections, and the plenary session was held in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions on the second day.
First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature: awaiting a resolution
ORS refers to this type of public organization that is born from above, and from the very “top”: I personally asked the Patriarch to head the Society V.V.Putin, he also delivered a greeting at the congress itself. In the Hall of Columns, in addition to the participants and delegates of the congress, there were ministers, presidential aides, deputies of the Duma and the Federation Council ( for the most part those who left after the departure of the president). Such an organizational resource makes the powers of this public organization very broad. This is both the strength and weakness of the Society - suddenly acquired power tempts you, you need to be prepared for it. How the ORS, whose presidium numbers more than 70 people, will use this power will become clear in the near future.
Patriarch Kirill- face new organization. It was his speech that opened the plenary session - and it became the most balanced, vivid and accurate speech of the congress. His Holiness spoke about how he sees the state of affairs with the teaching of literature and the Russian language in schools and universities. He spoke simply and figuratively; he managed to formulate the most ordinary things in such a way that they were filled with significant meaning. According to the patriarch, when talking about literature at school, there is not only an exchange of information; what is important is knowledge that goes from heart to heart, knowledge refracted through a person. Therefore, the figure of the mentor is key here. It is the teacher who manages (or fails) to instill a love of reading books - and this formation of love and interest in literature should become his main task. He is hampered by numerous bureaucratic things - but a talented teacher, even over these barriers, can send a powerful emotional signal to the student.
The Patriarch urged not to be afraid of variability in literary education. Main question is that the choice is between the best and the best, and not the best and the mediocre. Therefore, on the agenda is the definition of the “golden canon” (within which, however, its own variability is possible) and finding a reasonable balance between the basic, mandatory and variable parts of the program. The main thing, as the patriarch said, is to have a good head and kind heart- then the choice will be correct.
Recognizing the overload of the school curriculum, the patriarch suggested not rushing to abandon the classics. She is timeless. Focusing only on the modern, understandable, included in the current context is dangerous, because the context will fade, be forgotten, turn out to be momentary - “but Pushkin will remain forever.” At the same time, the patriarch urged not to freeze at one point and not to be afraid of change. He told how during a concert on Red Square he got into a conversation with an unfamiliar girl sitting next to him. She studies in the fifth grade - and completely amazed the patriarch with her depth of knowledge and freedom of judgment. “We weren’t like that; at her age, not only with the patriarch, I would be afraid to talk to the school director.” The children are different, the time is different - and the school should be different. But all changes must be thought out very well. Speaking about reforms, the patriarch particularly focused on the Unified State Exam: while supporting the idea of a unified exam in principle, he nevertheless spoke out sharply against test measurements of knowledge and called for an oral component to be introduced into the Unified State Exam.
Speaking about the pain points of the current humanitarian education, the patriarch emphasized that the OPC intends to deal with precisely them. And to solve pressing problems, it is necessary to consolidate different forces.
Other speakers also spoke about this consolidation, about what has been done recently in the field of Russian language and literature: the President of RAO L.Verbitskaya, Chairman of the State Duma S. Naryshkin, Minister of education D. Livanov. Then go to a short time visited by V. Putin, who welcomed the creation of the Society.
Then we moved on to the reports of the leaders of the working sections of the congress. And then it became clear that real consolidation is still very far away. And moments of consolidated applause during the speech of populist manipulative experts or indignant stamping of feet - well, where would a congress be without them? - rather cause sadness, reminiscent of other congresses of other times...
The recommendations of the sections, which were to be included in the final resolution of the congress, often contradicted each other, which corresponds to the picture of the real state of the professional community of humanists. Some proposed banning the concept of teaching Russian language and literature adopted by the government, others to begin work on a set of measures for its implementation. Some demanded that the sample programs be reworked and turned into unified and mandatory ones, while others said that this was impossible and unnecessary. The section of culture and art asked to make the Unified State Examination in literature mandatory, the section of parents - to return everything as it was in the Soviet school, increasing, for example, the share of “normative solemn, pretentious speech” in the environment of the child... There were calls to introduce exams in the Russian language for journalists and workers television and radio and dismiss for mistakes (in parentheses we will say that on the stands in the corridor of the Hall of Columns Ivan Alekseevich Bunin was called Andreevich, and the representative of Moscow State University in her speech called him Aleksandrovich - and, it seems, no one lost their posts...) And - etc. There were a lot of proposals, and it was impossible to create a congress resolution on them on the spot - so it was decided to collect, summarize and post all the materials on the OPC website.
It is unknown what form the final resolution will take as a result. The congress took place, and it is gratifying that the problems of literature were discussed these days at the highest level. But the main problem is that we have many committees, councils and societies dealing with Russian language and literature. And there are a lot of conversations. Will the ORS become a real force, capable of not only discussing problems, but also solving them? And won't it be a source of new problems? How will such a large organization manage its life and how will it establish connections with government agencies and society? Will they trust him? There are many questions, and we will get the first answers to them when we see the resolution and compare it with what was said and proposed at the congress.
Sergey Volkov
On May 26, 2016, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' spoke at the Congress of the Society of Russian Literature.
Dear participants of the First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature! I warmly greet you all.
I would like to note right away: although, as we know from Russian history, societies of lovers of Russian literature have been created before, such a representative meeting dedicated to issues of the Russian language and Russian literature is being held for the first time. In 1811, two societies were created in Russia, uniting people who were not indifferent to the fate of Russian literature. One of them, the literary and scientific “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” at Moscow University, existed until 1930. Another - “Conversations of Lovers of the Russian Word”, which united St. Petersburg writers - unfortunately, disbanded already in 1816, after the death of its founder Gabriel Derzhavin.
The “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” at Moscow University, which included, in addition to scientists and writers, statesmen and public figures, outstanding sons of our Fatherland, worked for the benefit of the people of their country for almost 120 years. During this time, the Society published many outstanding artistic and folklore works, scientific works and dictionaries. Thanks to him active work The teaching of philological disciplines in Russia has reached an unprecedented flourishing, and issues of the Russian language and literature have always been in the center of public attention and discussion.
In 1992, on the initiative of academician Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev, the “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” was revived. But a few years later, after the death of Dmitry Sergeevich and the energetic secretary of the Society, Raisa Nikolaevna Kleimenova, it, alas, practically ceased its activities.
And now all of us who care about fate Russian culture, united for the sake of preserving our national heritage - the Russian language and the great Russian culture. The main goal The newly formed Society of Russian Literature, as before, is the study and popularization of Russian literature and the Russian language, as well as increasing the role of philological disciplines in educational and educational processes at all levels national school- from elementary to higher.
We, representatives of the older generation, remember our school teachers with gratitude and are deeply grateful to them for their professionalism, for high quality teaching that they exhibited. Of course, the education system in the Soviet Union was largely ideological. But this is precisely the strength and greatness of Russian literature: it is capable of putting the light of truth, goodness and love into the hearts of readers, overcoming any peculiarities of the ideological context, including ideological blinders, “iron curtains” and other harmful external circumstances.
Great Russian classic literature, which so providentially arrived at its most powerful age at the beginning of the tragic twentieth century, took on another important mission, a task that was beyond the capabilities of any other humanitarian sphere at that time: it fulfilled the destiny of preserving for posterity not only Russian culture, but also our national history.
Finally, Russian literature - albeit contradictory, but steadily and courageously - has always led its reader to the knowledge of the highest spiritual and moral values, to the knowledge of the highest meaning of life, to the knowledge of God.
In this regard, I recall the remarkably precise words of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev about the role and significance of literature and philology in general: “Literature is not only the art of words. This is the art of overcoming words.<…>Understanding a text is an understanding of the entire life of one’s era behind the text. Therefore, philology is the connection of all connections.<…>It underlies not only science, but also all human culture. Knowledge and creativity are formed through the word, and through overcoming the rigidity of the word, culture is born.”
It is no coincidence that, perhaps not fully consciously rationally, but vividly feeling in their hearts, many people of the middle and older generation considered literature teachers to be their favorite teachers at school. But today the same literary scholars, our contemporaries - both young teachers and teachers of advanced age - are desperately sounding the alarm bell, seeing and realizing more clearly than others the danger of the situation that has developed in the current philological education.
The opinion that young people read little these days has become a common truth for many. But this fact, fortunately, is highly controversial. Firstly, not all young people read a little. And secondly, this problem is not insoluble.
I remember how in the 1950s and 60s they were worried that film adaptations of literary works would lead to teenagers stopping reading, just as they now say that computers and adapted books will completely wean young people from reading the classics. Of course, this can happen if the teacher does not instill a taste for literature and reading. That is why in our computerized times the role of a mentor is especially important - a person who transfers knowledge from heart to heart, from mind to mind. Indeed, in this communication there is not only a rational, but also a spiritual, emotional principle. I think everyone who is present here has long forgotten the content of the lectures of their professors in higher school. And when we say: “We had a wonderful professor,” the last thing we think about is the content of these lectures. The very fact of meeting with wonderful person, and not only on a rational level.
Therefore, the role of the teacher cannot be overestimated. He does not simply transmit information, as a computer does, he refracts what is said through himself and transmits part of his soul, his mind to those who listen to him. And if this is a sincere person, if he is a devotee of his craft, then nothing can compare in terms of the power of persuasion and influence on the audience with the words of a true master of his craft - a teacher.
And here, in my opinion, lies the root of the problem. Of course, the range, level and quality of reading of a growing, emerging person is influenced by the modern rhythm of life, and introduction to Internet culture, and the innovations of the electronic age. But the main problem It seems to me that the school, society and the state, in the end, do not always take care with due diligence and responsibility to instill in young people a taste for reading, teach them to understand and love literature, and extract the most important things from what they read. lessons for life.
This problem is complex, but completely solvable. To do this, special attention must be paid to the training of teaching staff in the humanities. It is impossible for people to enter pedagogical institutes on the residual principle: if you don’t get into an elite university, where to go? To the pedagogical! Pedagogical universities must become intellectual, cultural centers our country, and the prestige of teachers should be comparable to the prestige of scientists, astronauts, and athletes. In that case capable people will go to pedagogical universities, and it is they who will form the new generation, even if not everything goes well with the programs and manuals. Because a talented teacher can convey a powerful emotional, spiritual, intellectual signal over bureaucratic documentation - believe me, I know this first-hand.
Nevertheless, it is useful for us to think about school and university programs that are so actively discussed today, including their variability. I hope we will talk about this topic again, but, looking forward to the discussion, I would like to express my opinion: there is no need to be afraid of the word “variability.” Some shy away from him as if from a scarecrow. But the whole question is what to choose from. If we choose between two works by Dostoevsky, we will not lose anything. But if a great classic is contrasted with a writer whose work does not evoke universal admiration and whose personality does not evoke respect, then this is no longer variability, but similar phenomenon a different term should be used.
Therefore, there is no need to be afraid of variability. We need to talk about the intellectual, spiritual, and cultural content of school education programs. It is important that behind smart and attractive formulations such as “modular teaching”, “thematic principle”, “variable content”, “strengthening subjectivity in teaching”, “the teacher’s ability to formulate his own program, adapting it to the specifics of the school, class, region” , - there were verified and time-tested pedagogical methods, and did not hide, as happens, pedagogical helplessness, essentially unnecessary and dubious experiments, taste, restless desire for reforms, unprofessionalism, in the end. But it's not a matter of terms - it's a matter of content, a good head and a kind heart. Then we will have reached a national consensus on all the most complex issues, including those we are currently considering.
Certainly, school program in general, it is overloaded, and the child does not always cope with it successfully. I remember my academic years: The family was poor, and I was forced to work and study. I didn’t have a minute of free time either on the tram or on the bus - I was always with a book. I know what it's like to be overwhelmed. But I thank my wonderful teachers, who, despite this overload, armed me not only with knowledge, but also with a love of literature, and taught me how to write essays. And trying to make it easier for children to study by providing the opportunity to remove from the curriculum great works of artistic literature recognized throughout the world is, of course, unacceptable.
In preparing for this speech, I tried to delve into the main controversial issues relating to the teaching of literature in school. There are problems that I would like to propose for our joint discussion.
Some “experts” claim that Russian classical literature - its language, heroes, value paradigm - is incomprehensible modern schoolchildren, and therefore almost useless in the field of education. Another thing, in their opinion, is the literature of modern times, which talks about familiar realities, qualities needed for successful life, trends, excuse the word, etc.
“Trend” is a foreign word. “Tendency” is also foreign, but Latin. Why Latin word"tendency" was replaced by English "trend", explain to me, educated people? Or is the word “trend” an indicator of education? For me this is a very bad sign. That is why I did not delete the word “trend” from this text, wanting to express my opinion about the often completely illogical, unjustified use of foreign, primarily English, words in our modern Russian language.
Undoubtedly, best works Literatures of the turn of the XX-XXI centuries should be studied in school, but they should be introduced into the program without haste, remembering the ideological function of literature, which can awaken “good feelings,” in the words of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, and can promote both allegorical and explicit form of images and ideas that are destructive for children.
It is necessary to find a reasonable balance between the basic, mandatory and variable parts of the list of works offered for classroom and extracurricular reading. The need for responsible discussion and adoption of the so-called “golden canon” seems fundamentally important. It can be called whatever you like: “golden canon”, “national canon”, “canon of Russian literature”, but there must be a set of texts that must be studied in secondary school. Without this, we simply will not be able to form in children a holistic perception of Russian literature, and therefore Russian culture. I think there is no need to be afraid that in such a situation teachers are deprived of choice. There is always a choice: to work conscientiously or carelessly, to sincerely love children and your profession or to be indifferent to it. But the most important thing is the choice that I mentioned earlier. The teacher can choose from the two best the best, from his point of view. But the choice cannot be between the best and the mediocre, between obligatory for everyone due to the unique contribution of the work to Russian and world culture and a purely conceptual text, interesting in this moment, but losing meaning along with the disappearance historical context. Attaching liberal arts education solely to the context of the era is the wrong method. Undoubtedly, education should actualize ideas emanating from culture, from tradition. Without this, culture and tradition die. The modern context cannot fully control the educational process, because what is very important in our fast-moving time will not be important tomorrow. How we suffered from the problems of the 90s! I remember what was happening in this room. Such was the battle between the right and the left! Where are these battles, where are these people? Everything went away, but Pushkin didn’t leave! So, I think that it is necessary to find a reasonable balance between the basic, mandatory and variable parts of the list of works offered for classroom and extracurricular reading. Fundamentally important is the need to preserve, as I have already said, a certain canon. And I believe that this is what we should focus on: what kind of canon this is, what kind of books it is, and how variability can operate within this canon.
Obviously, one of the reasons for the decline in interest in Russian literature and its generally unsatisfactory knowledge among the younger generation was, among other things, the ongoing educational reforms over several years. I do not want to criticize any specific institutions, or people, or the very idea of reform. Professionals have already made various comments and will probably continue to criticize certain aspects of this reform. It is also impossible without reforms. You can't stand in one place. The world is developing, the school is developing, our country is developing. On May 24, the day of Cyril and Methodius, I was at a concert on Red Square. A girl was sitting next to me. I look - he sings very well, with a clear voice, very clearly. I started talking to her. The girl is studying in the 5th grade, I looked at her and couldn’t believe my eyes - sitting in front of me was an adult, relaxed, smart, knowledgeable. I remember myself in the 5th grade - I would not only be afraid to say a word to the Patriarch, I would be afraid to say a word to the school principal. But this is a different generation, and if we say that the school of the 50s-60s should be the indisputable gold standard for us, we will ruin the school, the standard, and everything else.
At the same time, I am sure that it would be wrong to consider education reforms, as I have already said, from an exclusively critical point of view. As a result of long-term reforms that affected all areas and levels of education, it was necessary to radically reduce the minimum threshold in the Unified State Examination. We are now touching on this difficult topic. Regarding the Unified State Exam, I will express my opinion - I have already expressed it several times in different audiences, I think it is important to do this now, without, of course, claiming any special positive assessments - it seems to me that completely abandoning the Unified State Exam would be the wrong step. I became acquainted with the Unified State Exam in Finland about 30 years ago. I had a connection to this country - I managed our parishes there, being the rector of the theological academy in St. Petersburg. And then one day I came to this country on a spring day, and I saw how many young people were wearing white caps. They explained to me that these are those who passed the state exam for high school. I ask: “What does this status give?” - “Student title.” - “Have they already entered universities?” - “No, and many will not do so. But they are already students, they have their own status recognized by the state.” And they told me about the Unified State Examination system, and I thought that this a good thing, when there is some kind of directive assessment of the student’s knowledge.
But there is something in this good idea that you definitely need to pay attention to in order to correct it in the future. better side, because cash Unified State Exam status causes too much criticism from parents, children, and teachers. The first criticism and objection is the test response system. There are subjects whose knowledge cannot be assessed in a test manner. Here's the rules traffic it is possible in a test manner, and in some countries they refused: they offer consideration of certain situations on computers. At one time I took my license in Switzerland - you put crosses and that’s it. But people realized that this was not entirely correct, that such an assessment system for a whole range of subjects was insufficient.
Therefore, it seems to me that, firstly, the introduction of an essay is already a very big step forward. It is important that an oral component be added to the Unified State Examination, which would not serve as the only method for determining knowledge. After all, a personality reveals itself when it talks, and the girl revealed herself when she started talking to me. And if you gave her some template, it remains to be seen what she would say. Therefore, I am deeply convinced that the oral component when passing a state exam in a number of subjects is very important point. Of course, this primarily concerns the Russian language and literature. It is impossible to “drive” all the wealth of our literature into tests and short answers to questions. Recently, at the awards ceremony for the Patriarchal laureates literary prize I already recalled the words of Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman, with whom I had the joy of personal acquaintance and communication. I can’t say that we were friends, but we were mutually interested interlocutors. I knew both him and his wife, and I gained a lot from communicating with this man. So, he said that eternal ideas and values invariably put on the clothes of time, and the reader only needs to correctly recognize these thoughts. Today I would like to quote another remarkable statement by this outstanding philologist. Speaking about categories such as culture and information, he said: “Culture is not a warehouse of information at all.<…>Culture is a flexible and complexly organized mechanism of cognition.” It is impossible to imagine literature as a collection of data about writers, their works and main characters. Reading a literary work is always reflection, a deep inner work of the mind and heart, which cannot be seen and assessed by correctly checking the boxes.
It is no coincidence that in the 50s and 60s people sometimes expressed criticisms about the film adaptation classical works. What happens to a person when he reads a classic? literary work? And the more talented the author, the more powerfully what I’m about to say affects a person. Every reader of fiction creates in his mind artistic image. And the stronger the writer, the brighter the image in our minds. I do not live by the images that I saw in films based on the novels of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. I have developed my own images, even my own room interiors; how I imagine the clothes based on what was written in these texts, what the characters looked like. In other words, each of us, reading a literary text, becomes a co-author; for himself - we have already talked about actualization today - he personally updates the content of the work of art. And this cannot be replaced either by cinema, although even there it is interesting to observe the skill of the director and actors, or by theatre, although even there it is important to see the beauty of everything that the director and actor create. Because with reading, you are the director yourself, you are the artist yourself, you are the director yourself. It is in this part of assimilation literary text, I think, contains its enduring significance for the formation of personality, for the formation of human culture.
Extremely important topic, which also needs our joint discussion, is the issue of training future teachers. I have already said this and will not dwell on it. I will only say that Russian literature is, without exaggeration, one of the pillars of our national life, the most important foundation of the civilization of the Russian world, I would say, a cultural pillar state life. Therefore, the future of the Russian language and literature should be a subject of discussion not only among professionals, but also among all Russian society. This is a strategic task today that must be resolved responsibly.
The fertile field of Russian literature should not be an arena for ideological battles, for lobbying someone's interests, or inappropriate experiments. We need to clear this platform of internecine strife that we inherited from the 90s. We must fully realize that over the past years and decades, mistakes and distortions have, of course, been made, but there is no life without mistakes and without distortions. It is very dangerous when a mistake is not noticed, when it is due to political, human factors is hushed up and enters flesh and blood folk life. That's when this mistake becomes a historical crime. I think we are all called today - not only society, but also the Government, the writing workshop, readers - to realize that we are at a very important point in our spiritual, cultural development. What will happen to our school, to our literature, to our writing workshop and to our readers depends to a large extent on what this development will be like.
Thank you for attention.
― Likhachev D.S. About the art of words and philology.
― Lotman Yu.M. Culture and information // Lotman Yu.M. Articles on semiotics of culture and art.
