Family education abroad. Features of raising children in China. How different we are

RAISING IN A FAMILY ABROAD

Scientists and the public in many countries are concerned that modern family education is not as effective and complete as it should be. In this regard, special programs are being developed aimed at improving the pedagogical culture of the family: parent education programs, parent pedagogical education programs.

The emergence of the concept of “parental education” dates back to the end of the last century, when associations emerged in America and Europe designed to provide assistance in family education. Nowadays, the concept of “parenting” has become very widespread and truly international. The essence of parental education is qualified assistance to the family in fulfilling its educational function. Over the course of the current century, through the efforts of scientists from many countries, an attempt has been made to create theory of parenting. The main concepts of this theory are “psychological and pedagogical foundations of interaction in the family”, “content and forms of parental education”.

Initially, parenting was limited to formal communication to parents of the knowledge necessary to raise children. Currently, the content of parental education has undergone significant changes: it includes a wide range of knowledge necessary for the normal functioning of the family (pedagogical, psychological, economic, medical, legal, ethnographic, ethical, etc.). To implement the knowledge program, various formal and informal activities are provided (consultations, conversations, briefings, trainings, courses and seminars, video equipment services, activities in church communities, etc.). Parenting is viewed as a constant process of self-development for adults, based on their conscious desire to improve their personality.

Parent education programs in European countries are implemented in different models: Adlerian, educational-theoretical, model of sensory communication, model based on transactional analysis, model of group consultations, Christian parenting, etc. All models have their own history, are based on certain theoretical principles, and, therefore, give parents different guidelines in educational activities and focus on one or another practice of raising children. Common to the above models is the starting point that society and parents themselves can help themselves become better, and this is the most important prerequisite for successful home education.

In the United States, numerous programs to assist family education are being developed and implemented, which are often called teacher education programs parents. They are characterized by complex content, since they were created by the joint efforts of teachers, psychologists, sociologists, psychotherapists and other specialists. The programs are aimed at strengthening all parts of family education, but primarily at increasing the pedagogical competence of parents. The characteristics of different groups of families are taken into account, therefore programs of differentiated pedagogical assistance to families are created. For example, for families with children with psychophysiological developmental disorders; with adopted children; for families “in unfavorable social conditions”, etc. An example of such programs is the Head Start project, translated as “Advanced Start”. It was conceived with the aim of providing comprehensive educational, health and social services to children from low-income families. In this case, the characteristics of the child’s family are taken into account, and Special attention for the full participation of the child’s family in the proposed program. Since 1965, more than 5 million children have been enrolled in the Head Start education system. Every year, about 1,400 Head Start Centers (preschools) enroll approximately children and almost the same number of parents. Working with parents has a number of aspects, such as: the participation of parents in planning the work of preschool institutions and the implementation of their plans; informing and training parents modern methods children's education applicable at home; individual counseling of parents to help solve their problems, etc. Parents are involved in various educational activities with children (conducting lessons, visiting a museum, library, preparing a performance, etc.) as voluntary assistants or paid employees. Parents work with their own children under the guidance of specialists. For example, teaching mothers how to develop personal hygiene skills in their children, how to read a book, etc.

In the Head Start project, as in other teacher education programs for parents in the United States, much attention is paid to the psychological foundations of interaction in the family on the principle of equality between adults and children. Thus, parents learn to listen with interest to their children’s opinions (the “active listening” method), turn to humane methods for correcting their behavior, etc.

Many US states are developing programs to involve men in raising children, including the creation of courses where men are trained in child care, encouraging men to work as school teachers and kindergarten teachers.

First of all, child upbringing abroad is more liberal, but there are many other interesting nuances.
It turns out that mothers and fathers abroad are less likely to argue with doctors, proving to them the terrible harm of vaccinations. And they don’t seek advice on treating children as diligently on social networks as we do. And besides, they do a lot of things that are incomprehensible to us, which generally looks somehow suspicious. Let's get acquainted with the list of features of raising children from different countries.
1. Take care of the child’s emotional comfort and rest
The tendency to enroll your child in a music school, a sports section, two language tutors, and two more clubs and a studio “for the soul” is not typical for many European parents. In Bavaria, they believe that a seven-year-old is overloaded when, in addition to a completely “relaxed” school, devoid of homework, they attend at least some sports section once a week. In Holland, mothers and fathers choose good rest and a pleasant environment as their educational priorities. And only 10% of Dutch people used the word “smart” when describing their children, as if they didn’t care about the intelligence of their three-year-old. It’s even hard to believe the Russian mother!
The Finns are joining them, allowing schoolchildren after every 45 minutes of study to go outside and play, instead of diligently studying any useful sciences. In our country, this can only be imagined if they introduce a Unified State Examination on the ability to play tag.
2. Allow children to use a real knife
Imagine, the Germans don’t bully children by handing them a plastic knife and demanding they cut tomatoes. Five-year-old Hans wielding a steel knife is not uncommon in German cuisine. And this is strange for typical Russian parents, who equipped all the sockets in the apartment with plastic plugs, trimmed all the cats’ claws and installed special nozzles on the doors so that no one could get their fingers pinched. Research by Norwegian scientist Helen Sandsäter shows that the more parents allow children to take risks, the more aware they are of the dangers and, as a result, suffer fewer injuries.
3. Seriously listen to the little person's opinions
In Scandinavia, the cultural context necessarily implies equality between adults and children. Sweden has long passed a law prohibiting corporal punishment, and it is being successfully implemented. It is quite obvious that Scandinavians choose a liberal style in communicating with their children, and they categorically do not like any manifestations of authoritarianism.
4. Sitting with children in a cafe until late
In Italy and Spain, when Russian tourists are already returning after spending the night entertainment programs, local residents can only go for dinner. They sit around the table in a “small” group: about seventeen people. Everyone is noisy, waving their arms, children are running around in crowds, waiters are phlegmatically setting out plates. Russian tourists try to explain this phenomenon to themselves by the long siesta and hot climate, which makes it difficult to have lunch at a normal time for us, and not at night, when decent people can only sneak into the refrigerator once.
However, this is not the point: Italians care about the interpersonal aspects of a child’s development. They don’t understand how they can put their children to bed at seven in the evening. After all, then they will miss the traditional grandfather's toast, the meaningful conversation between Uncle Mario and Aunt Ines, or the father's speech about the agricultural needs of the region.
5. Develop sociability
American psychologists identified differences in socialization between children from Poland, Chile, the USA and South Korea. Residents of the States turned out to be the most emotional and sociable. Mothers from the United States more often sought to engage their children in stimulating activities, smiled at them more, and did not allow them to plunge into philosophical thoughts. It probably makes sense in Russian maternity hospitals to draw the attention of young mothers not only to the correct putting on of a diaper with a cap, but also to communication with the child.
Our editors are interested in your opinion about the listed differences in the upbringing of Russian children and foreigners. Write to us! Maybe you would like to add something interesting to this list that we could learn from our foreign parents.

1. Who will protect the child?

Many years have passed since the United Nations adopted the “Declaration of the Rights of the Child” - a document aimed at protecting children from hunger, epidemic diseases, and exploitation.

How significant, how incredibly important are effective measures aimed at protecting the rights of the child, how weighty are the words that remind humanity that the world of childhood can and should be beautiful, how necessary it is for everyone to know the nature of this world and devote all their thoughts and efforts to education in children of goodness, intelligence, beauty! Meanwhile, a child, as the wonderful Polish teacher Janusz Korczak once said, has only one real right - the right to die. Millions of children sentenced to slow death. Condemned by Chernobyl and other disasters, incurable diseases, polluted environment!

Millions of children suffering from national strife, from the unjust struggle in which humanity is increasingly drawn into - how to save them?

In this difficult time, the role of the educator becomes especially important, because only the one who will enter the children’s souls, who will warm their hearts, who will protect them from social and other adversities can help children. What should the personality of a modern educator be like?

Let me emphasize once again: I began my philosophical conversation about family education with the personality of the teacher also because in our country the role of the individual – both the child and the parents – was belittled. You will not find a single book that reveals the personality of a father or mother, their spiritual world, culture and attitude to universal human values.

Perhaps the exception is “A Book for Parents” by Anton Makarenko. But if you open the academic edition of the fourth volume of his works, which is entirely devoted to the problems of family education, then you can read that the main theme of the “Book for Parents” is “the Soviet family as a collective.” Please note that this work is dedicated not to the personality of the child or to the personalities of the parents, but to the team. I oppose the point of view of Makarenko, who argued that it is not the individual, but the collective that is the main educator of the child’s personality. Let me make a reservation right away: while decisively rejecting the doctrine of collectivism, I still regard Makarenko as a great teacher who, like Etienne Cabet and Robert Owen, created another pedagogical utopia: the utopia of “democratic authoritarianism.”

To answer many questions about personal education, the activities and positions of teachers and parents, I will talk about three significant teachers - Benjamin Spock, Konstantin Ushinsky and Anton Makarenko.

2. The core of education is love for children and childhood

The characters of educators can be different, but the core is the same - love for children, trust and respect for human dignity, love for freedom and respect for the democracy of interpersonal relationships.

I would like to note right away that the pedagogical experience of each parent is great in some way and is not inferior in importance to those generalizations contained in the writings of major teachers. When Spock insisted, “Parents, have more confidence in yourselves, use the parenting wisdom of your grandparents, yourself, and those around you,” he was emphasizing that parents have enough knowledge to raise their children well. And mistakes in raising children result from the indecision and confusion of parents and because they find themselves in stressful situations, because they are haunted by the troubles of social disorder, conformism and the notorious authoritarianism. While advocating for the humanity of education, I cannot lose sight of the problem of citizenship, which is currently especially evident in the interest of parents in such complex phenomena as politics and war, national strife and social activity of families, social communities, regions, the market and environmental issues. troubles.

When the striking miners of Kuzbass say that they are no longer slaves, they are thereby introducing civic education into their families and setting a great example of courage and democracy for their children.

When the metallurgists of the Urals demand an urgent solution to environmental problems, they act in a civil manner, because they think not only about themselves and their generation, but also about future families, future generations.

When children and teachers in schools rebel against authoritarianism, low pay and poor working conditions, a process of civic education is underway in families, which the public must support. They may ask me; But how does such an attitude towards rebellion, strikes and rallies agree with the philosophy of Freedom and Love, with the Christian education of humility and self-reproach?

I answer: Freedom and Love is God, who stands up for justice, kindness towards the disadvantaged, for the beauty of human actions, for selfless service to people. The Son of Man gave us an example of selfless love for people. When the fathers of families and the mothers of their children cease to be slaves, they draw closer to God, for it is not pride that takes possession of them, but the readiness to go to the cross, the readiness to sacrifice themselves for the good of their children and future generations.

From the history of pedagogical thought, I chose three teachers who, in my opinion, boldly went to the cross in the name of the great pedagogy of Freedom and Love. Ushinsky and Spock walked, defending Freedom and Love, Makarenko, oddly enough, denying universal human values. And in this unity of acceptance and denial there is an eternal struggle between Good and Evil, Love and Dislike, Freedom and Slavery. This unity is always in our souls, in the soul of every parent, no matter how perfect he may be. That is why I dared to critically evaluate such remarkable pedagogical personalities.

3. About the height of the teacher’s personality

The height of a teacher’s personality is determined by the measure of citizenship, the gift of hearing the dialogue of his era, as M. M. Bakhtin noted, or, more precisely, hearing his era as a great dialogue. To catch in it not only the resonances of the voices of the past, but also to hear the voice of the future. Reveal thought as a great contradiction and suffer from unresolved life conflicts. Selflessly serve the great ideas of a just world order and endlessly believe in them.

With this measure you involuntarily measure the remarkable American doctor and teacher Benjamin Spock, whose books in our country were published in millions of copies over the last quarter of the twentieth century. Since my son and I were directly involved in the preparation of B. Spock’s publications, I was interested in finding out the reasons for the enormous popularity of the American teacher. My conclusions may be unexpected, but I dare to say that Spock conquered our parents with the breadth of his freedom-loving soul, sincere love to people and to children, with his unique personality, devoid of any pedantry, tediousness or arrogant moralizing.

Like the two most important dominants in Benjamin Spock. One is connected with politics and philosophy - here he is a fierce opponent of war and a defender of the highest social justice. The other is due to professional activity that combines the art of medicine and the art of education.

The basis of these two dominants, I am absolutely convinced of this today, are such universal human values ​​as Love and Freedom. I confess: the source of my constant energy is children, moreover, international children's and pedagogical movements that took place in the USA and England, Germany and Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, Poland and Hungary, Denmark and Italy, and in many other countries, constantly who took part in international children's festivals in Artek. In the mid-70s I went to a festival where Benjamin Spock was invited; I wanted to see him interact with children, to become more thoroughly acquainted with his views on education, and to come closer to understanding his pedagogical philosophy.

I have never doubted that the content of personality largely determines pedagogical views. More precisely, the personal aspect in pedagogy is extremely important, since it leaves a certain imprint on the entire pedagogical world of a particular thinker in this field. Looking over all the great teachers in my memory, I unwittingly divided them (in a purely personal sense) into two types. First: Owen, Ushinsky, Disterweg, Makarenko. Here I encountered a frantic character - eyes burning like a prophet, nerves like cables; powerful energy gives rise to powerful formulas: if character is created by circumstances, then the environment must be changed (Owen); if the teacher breathes energy, children’s initiative inevitably develops (Disterweg); only a happy person can raise a happy person: tear yourself to pieces, but become happy, otherwise you will not be able to raise children (Makarenko). In this character, it seemed to me, major intonations predominate. And the whole spirit of the individual is reformist, uncompromising. The other type, according to my assumptions, was not the complete opposite of the first, but here the tenderness of the teacher’s soul somehow softened the tone of the teacher’s quest. Here there is more focus on the attitude towards the child’s personality, here there is kindness in that exquisitely reverent subtlety that gives rise to the intimacy of touch, characteristic of people who are easily vulnerable and painfully doubtful. Here, truly civic passion is born as a great revelation through one’s own torment, pain, and purification.

4. Freedom and security of the child

The talent of a pedagogical personality is determined by the ability to love children, the ability to provide them with maximum freedom, and ensure the child’s complete protection.

Only Pestalozzi - sick, exhausted, but ready at any second to sacrifice himself in the name of one unfortunate child - could formulate his main method of influencing the children's soul: “From morning to evening I was among them. Everything good for body and spirit came to them from my hands... My hand lay in their hand, my eyes looked into theirs. My tears flowed with theirs, and my smile followed their smile.”

And how the apotheosis of this line of spiritual communication is Janusz Korczak, who crossed the threshold of a fascist crematorium with his children...

Having won the right to say: “I give my heart to children,” V. A. Sukhomlinsky will write in one of his last books: “Having access to the fairy-tale palace, whose name - Childhood, I have always felt it necessary to become, to some extent, a child. Only under this condition will children not look at you as a person who accidentally entered the gates of their fairy-tale world, as a watchman guarding this world, a watchman who is indifferent to what is happening inside ... "

Of course, such a division of pedagogical lines into two types is very arbitrary, inaccurate, and vulnerable. But you cannot discount reality, especially since it manifests itself in the pedagogical style, in the pedagogical palette. Moreover, these very personal nuances are in special connection with the entire worldview of the individual, they are individual and different, they are united in democracy and humanity, in that irrepressible pedagogical greed, striving to cover all the factors in the formation of the human soul, so that the child becomes better, so that mothers and fathers life was joyful. Therefore, the peaks of both types are the same: to create systems that ensure comprehensive and harmonious development is the only goal of pedagogical daring. Some clarification is required here.

When we formulate a goal like this, every parent involuntarily asks the question: “Isn’t it too high - comprehensively and harmoniously?”

5. Education in freedom - the magic formula of true pedagogy

Education in freedom and love, through freedom and love, for freedom and love is a true harmonious education, comprehensive and humanistic. This education is the goal of life for the family, state and society.

And this common goal eliminates the need for a banal question: “Which line in a pedagogical drawing is more correct: soft or strict?” Asking such a question is as illegitimate as giving preference to Hegel over Berdyaev, Nekrasov over Tyutchev, Faulkner over Hemingway. We're just dealing with different levels of human talent. Although this can be debated for a long time.

I say all this not by chance, since in pedagogy, as in art, swaying in one direction or the other has always brought a lot of harm: it killed the poetic form to the detriment of the content, and in pedagogy it sometimes separated the indissoluble - caring attitude towards the child’s personality and the entire organization of children's lives, guaranteeing their sovereignty and security.

What is the pedagogical palette of Benjamin Spock? How did the “Dr. Spock – modern American society – child’s personality” system shape those attitudes that appealed to parents in many countries? What is Spock like as a person?

I will not hide that from many publications about him, and from his books, I have formed a certain idea - rather a teacher of the Korczakian type. A sort of kind, very kind, of course tenderly sentimental fairy-tale Aibolit. But it turned out the other way around. And I am glad that my constructions about two pedagogical lines collapsed. The belief has strengthened that a true educator is a unique personality, in whom citizenship and humanity are organically fused.

Many years ago, a wave of discussions around Spock's pedagogical views swept across the world. Articles also appeared in our press. In particular, the following characteristic letter from geologist A. Siluyanov from Kurgan was published on the pages of the Literaturnaya Gazeta:

“Dear editors! In our country, the American educator and pediatrician Dr. Spock is well known from his wonderful book “The Child and His Care,” translated into Russian. The progressive, humanistic ideas and pedagogical principles he formulated are close and understandable to us; they echo the ideas and educational practices of our outstanding teachers K. D. Ushinsky, V. A. Sukhomlinsky, S. T. Shatsky and others. But abroad, as has already been mentioned in our press, reports have appeared that Dr. Spock has changed his principles, abandoned the education system built on kindness and trust in the child, and now relies primarily on toughness and discipline. What happened to Dr. Spock? I don’t quite understand why discipline needs to be contrasted with trust—does one exclude the other? And why does pointing out that, in addition to kindness, toughness can also be useful, mean a betrayal of previous views?”

And in September 1974, I appeared on the pages of the Literary Gazette with the article “Doctor Spock versus Doctor Spock?” The question mark in the title of the article was not placed by chance, because, as it seems to me, I proved that Dr. Spock did not commit any apostasy. Three years later, when I met Spock, I showed him this article. Spock liked the title, and when the translator introduced him to the contents of the article, Spock, in general, agreed with what I wrote and emphasized that he had not changed his principles. I will not hide that at that time I seemed to avoid categorical, categorical statements, since some things remained incomprehensible to me, the problem was unusually complex and debatable.

And this, in a sense, “reflective” position of mine gave reason for some readers to come to the conclusion that I nevertheless reproached Spock for apostasy. However, even now many of those who met Spock tell me that he did experience some retreat. I do not share this position, since the question, again, I emphasize, is complex. And here we must talk about a whole system of contradictions that arose as a result of the pedagogical and socio-political activities of this remarkable person.

6. Teacher – philosopher, sage, citizen

Education is always driven by pedagogical ideas, which most often seem controversial, sometimes paradoxical and even unacceptable. To understand these ideas, everyone must be to some extent a philosopher, a sage and a citizen. Trust your wisdom, citizenship, humanity!..

So, Dr. Spock, whose name is associated with humanistic pedagogy, came up with an article in which he allegedly advocated firmness in raising children.

Dr. Spock, an anti-war leader and peace activist, argues that without strict, consistently enforced demands, there can be no effective education.

Dr. Spock, a wonderful teacher of our time, suddenly saw in gentleness, kindness, and parental affection the main contradictions of raising children in modern America.

This new position of his caused a storm of passion in the foreign press.

Radio... Newspapers... Television... Dozens of requests... Everyone wants to know why and why Dr. Spock needed to change his beliefs: preach firmness and discipline instead of kindness, “go over to the conservatives,” retreat...

What prompted these statements? Why did seemingly private issues of pedagogy become publicly significant? Before answering all these questions and the main one: whether Dr. Spock remained true to his views or changed them, I will allow myself a small digression: it is necessary to explain why the decision of what to put first - severity or kindness - turns out to be cardinal in raising children.

History knows many cases when one book or article about education set social thought in motion and made a kind of cleansing revolution in people's minds. How can we explain this resonance? How can we explain that the presentation of a pedagogical idea to the public court led to the fact that the pulse of public life instantly quickened and major scientists, teachers, writers - Rousseau and Tolstoy, Pirogov and Dobrolyubov, Makarenko and Sukhomlinsky - entered into polemics?.. They invaded the very depths social life, through individual links of micro-pedagogical phenomena, they exposed social contradictions and found that one truth, the truth, which for many years then supported the moral development of society.

Resolving seemingly family, by no means global, problems of upbringing - “to swaddle or not to swaddle?”, “to whip or not to whip?”, “to punish or encourage?”, “to strictly follow the regime or with some relaxation?” - recognized authorities societies, for example Rousseau and Owen, Dobrolyubov and Tolstoy, pointed to the causes of existing evil and tried to explain ways to renew the world. That is, they did not take on trivial or highly specialized topics, but those that, as Ushinsky aptly put it, became social issues for everyone and family issues for everyone.

For the pedagogy of Love and Freedom, the problem of the primacy of kindness over severity is one of the most important: its correct solution explains subtle moral overflows, the logic of affirming humanity in the upbringing of children. Here the slightest omissions and inaccuracies affect the entire system of pedagogical approaches.

Genuine pedagogy, even if it deals with abstract processes, always takes into account the peculiarities of the world of childhood, the world of the child’s personality. Yes! It is on how we touch children, how we force them to learn their lessons and put them to bed, how we laugh in their presence and talk about ourselves, how we threaten or encourage - the formation of a child’s soul and even, in a certain sense, the fate of an entire generation depends on all this.

Working at school for many years and studying pedagogical theory, I have been convinced thousands of times that the scientific solution to this problem allows us to clearly separate authority from authoritarianism, freedom from permissiveness, true love from blind attachment, the need for uncompromising submission to moral laws from pedagogical arbitrariness and violence...

The more you read into the books of Dr. Spock, the more clearly you realize that here we are talking not so much about closed ethical categories, but about the main problems of education, which inevitably collide with the ideology of society.

In one of his interviews, Dr. Spock said: “You know, there was such an uproar after I came out with this ill-fated article... Everyone asks about the same thing, everyone wants to know why and why I wrote that. And the letters! Here you go: “Shame on you, you ruined the younger generation.” Or this: “It’s your fault that my son became a criminal...” How stupid, how ridiculous all this is! They didn't understand anything. Nothing! In my article... I just repeated everything that I have been saying for three decades: “Don’t give in to your children. When necessary, don’t be afraid to be firm with them.” But being firm does not mean being angry: it means raising a child in an atmosphere of joy and friendship...”

So, a seemingly private pedagogical question of what to put first - rigor or kindness - divided people into two opposite camps. The first - supporters of humanism - argue that only in an atmosphere of kindness can true education be carried out. Spock has always been one of them. He wrote in the book “The Child and His Care” that children, more than anything else in the world, need the love of devoted parents, that children who became criminals suffered not from a lack of punishment, but from a lack of love, that every child is an individual.

It cannot be said that supporters of the second concept completely rejected affection and kindness. They simply preferred rigor and strict requirements. None of them, of course, called for “crushing a child’s ribs from childhood,” but they advocated the unquestioning submission of children to the will of an adult.

It was precisely these authoritarian methods that Benjamin Spock spoke out against more than half a century ago. Then he put parental warmth, the child’s freedom, and his creative activity in first place. Was he then a permissivist - a preacher of permissiveness? No. Was his theoretical concept related to, say, the theory free upbringing? No. Did he make any adjustments to the development of his ideas over time? Of course. These adjustments reflect some of the evolution of Dr. Spock's views and the contradictions of American society.

8. Caution and flexibility!

More and more, today's parent is drawn into social battles for a better life, for Better conditions life. In these processes, we need to think about children, first of all, about children! You have to be extremely careful and flexible!

Already in the 50s, Spock warned mothers against extremes in raising children. “Be sensitive,” he says, “take into account the wishes and will of your child. But be careful, don't let your child turn you into a slave. Remember that parents and parental authority should play the leading role. I mean real authority, not authoritarianism, of course. This is not about punishing a child, but about the ability to teach him what is good and fair. It is necessary to ensure that there is simply no need for punishment as a method of education...”

Observing how many parents make mistakes - cultivating permissiveness, indulging whims, contributing to the emergence of lack of will and irresponsibility in children - Spock specially revises his book for the second edition and especially emphasizes the role of parental authority, discipline...

In the mid-60s, the United States began the war in Vietnam, and Dr. Spock immediately joined the anti-war movement, explaining his action: “There is no point in raising children and then letting them burn alive.” He becomes an anti-war leader, one of the organizers of anti-war marches. Official circles are prosecuting him on charges of conspiracy to induce young people not to serve in the army. And progressive forces unanimously award him the title of humanist... Spock's pedagogical ideas, as one would expect, came together with big politics. Supporters of humanism unconditionally approve of his ideas. And adherents of toughening write to him: “I burned your book!”, “I tore it into small pieces...”. They scream in unison: “It’s Spock’s fault that our youth are so undisciplined and irresponsible...”.

Yes, Spock is forced under their pressure to make excuses: “In countries where no one has ever seen my book, do young people rebel less?” But, like many years ago, he adheres to his basic principle: “The essence of discipline, nine-tenths of it, is the love that a child feels for his parents.”

It could be said that Spock is not directly responsible for the conflicting interpretations of his articles. But everyone is responsible not only for what he said, but also to a certain extent for how he was understood.

It would be possible to ignore these contradictions, given the high integrity of Dr. Spock, and all his humanistic experience, and his statements that he does not change his views on fundamental issues.

It would be possible to wait until the thickening polemical fog dissipates on its own. But this is hardly possible, since behind the subtlety of the issue and seemingly insignificant amendments there are global problems in the formation of a person’s personality and complex contradictions in any social community. These contradictions, in particular in a country like Russia, became glaring in the first decade of this century. The behavior of parents who, when communicating with their children, break into an angry, “Shut up!” behavior is becoming widespread. Physical punishment in the family has become more frequent, the barometer of unjustified severity constantly shows a “storm”.

Of course, children should also take into account the troubles of adults. And they, as a rule, understand their parents when they calmly and reasonably explain to them the difficulties of their common existence. And in general, I must say that the true pedagogy of Love and Freedom is tested precisely in difficult situations. One terrible fact always comes to mind when a parent literally went crazy: while walking through Stalin’s Siberian stage, he could not stand the scream of his sick and hungry one-year-old child and threw him against a tree, and then stretched out in the snow and screamed at the top of his lungs: "Finish me!"

...I peered into the children's faces of Armenian and Russian refugees: how much suffering there was in their eyes and how much respect for mothers and fathers who gave all their love to their children. We probably still have to experience a lot of hardships, and how important it is that we do not lose our love for children, for freedom and for justice!

9. Know how to protect your children!

The state will always advocate for tougher education, for punishment, for authoritarianism. Know how to resist these trends.

Something similar to what happened to Spock happened in Russia about a hundred years ago. The famous doctor and teacher N.I. Pirogov, in his article “Questions of Life,” made concessions to the public, allowing, albeit with reservations, the possibility of using rods in gymnasiums.

N.A. Dobrolyubov, sharply condemning Pirogov’s inconsistency, wrote then: “...Mr. Pirogov turned out to be weak in front of the environment, and he gave in, he gave in not in trifles, but in principle, he gave in in what he had resolutely and clearly stated his opinion against before.”

F. M. Dostoevsky was going to speak on this issue. His notes made in his notebooks are interesting. I will cite some of them: “The real trial of Mr. Pirogov would be this: “What, Pirogov, voluntarily went over to the obscurantist party or just made a concession to your opponents?” But obscurantism is impossible in Pirogov, so a concession... Quite a bad and ugly truth. Was it possible to do without it? It’s almost possible...” “He (Pirogov. – Yu. A.) I was wrong, let's say. But reality sometimes knocks brilliant people off their feet... Pirogov nowhere agrees with the rod as a principle...", "Pirogov decided that it was better to do at least something, if not everything."

Yes, indeed, Pirogov did not elevate the rod to the principle of education, although he did not think of good discipline without severity and punishment. Like Spock, Pirogov stood up for an atmosphere of love, for a kind attitude towards children, for humanism... At the same time, he was not against firmness, and in other cases, harshness in dealing with children. Like many of his colleagues. Just like the state, church, “society”.

10. The teacher is responsible for the results of his work

The teacher is responsible not only for his own actions, but also for those negative results that occurred in the upbringing of children, as if against the will of the teacher. Moreover, pedagogical attitudes can be the most humanistic, and the result is authoritarian. This is why a teacher needs the wisdom of a philosopher.

Pirogov's contradictions are to some extent reminiscent of the contradictions that emerged in the views of Dr. Spock. The very fact that Dr. Spock decisively abandoned the judgments he had expressed in his last articles has already brought some clarity to the discussion and emphasized with even greater force the complex contradictions of educational practice in modern America. I will give the answers that Spock gave in his interview for Europeo magazine.

“It would never have occurred to me to say,” Spock explained to a journalist interviewing him, “that parents should suppress the will of their children. Just as it would never have occurred to me to say: if your son decided to hang a cat from a tree, take it calmly, let him hang it...”

No, Spock is, of course, neither an obscurantist nor a conformist. He makes no concessions on issues of principle.

“You see, the previous generation believed,” he says, “that only through awe of their father’s or mother’s authority could children become worthy citizens... I showed that this was nonsense... And I explained it, referring to my own experience. As a child, I was afraid of my father and mother. And not only in childhood, but also in youth. Being afraid of them, I was afraid of everything: teachers, policemen, dogs. I grew up a prude, a moralist and a snob; I then had to fight against all this all my life. But today's children! Today in America you can no longer tell a child: “Do this or that” - if you want to be obeyed, you must prove the reasonableness of your demand. You probably noticed with what freedom young people criticized the university authorities when they realized how harsh and coercive orders the life of higher educational institutions was subject to. How they fought for civil rights, against the Vietnam War! You know, I think that the Vietnam War made young people think deeply. It showed what a cancer imperialism, racism, poverty, inequality, and environmental pollution are. And the youth rebelled and began to look for other ideals. So, they, these young Americans, are the “children” of Dr. Spock. Guys who are full of courage and feel entitled to ask themselves and others any questions.”

The drama of Dr. Spock is that he is trying to reconcile the irreconcilable, strives to defend the humanistic system of education in a society that, due to its contradictions, even if it allows some amount of “Spockization,” it will certainly later take it out on the children, deforming something in them , will not allow something to develop... The tragedy of such teachers as Makarenko and Sukhomlinsky is that they lived and worked in an authoritarian state and glorified this authoritarianism, calling it fair, democratic and humane.

The tragedy of today's family pedagogy is that parents raise children without being sure that they will not be crippled by a new war, will not be suffocated by hunger, or will not be overtaken by environmental death.

How vain and petty the questions we are discussing may seem at first glance: what to put first - affection or severity? And at the same time, these are by no means minor issues, especially for today’s family, when both parent and child need social protection, when the family at all costs must rally around its hearth, mobilize all its strength in order to survive and not let to offend your children.

So what should be put first – affection or severity? Let us answer with the words of V.A. Sukhomlinsky, who, polemicizing with his opponents, wrote: “I cannot agree that a child must be loved with some caution, that in humanity, sensitivity, affection, warmth there is some kind of danger... I am sure that only humanity, affection, kindness can raise a real person..."

Strictness has nothing to do with authoritarianism. True Love and Freedom are always distinguished by chaste severity, some uncompromisingness and endless faith in the creative powers of the child. One thing is important: to what extent severity and chastity, humility and self-reproach contribute to the development and flowering of Love and Freedom in children's souls.

I told Spock about the discussion that the Literary Gazette was having on its pages. The discussion was called “Who and how do we raise?” One of the questions was: “Why sometimes kindness turns into evil in raising children?”

“It doesn’t work that way,” Dr. Spock remarks sharply, as if he had answered such a question more than once. And then a counter question: - Give me an example.

“It turns out that you can’t spoil the porridge with oil,” I avoid answering, since I share the doctor’s position.

Spock laughs and adds:

– There are very few moral axioms in life, but one of them is this: kindness never leads to evil.

– Then why in the USA, and not only in the USA, is there so much controversy around this problem of “strictness - kindness”?

– In America, there are indeed many scientists of an authoritarian school who believe that if a child is treated strictly and even cruelly, he will grow up to be a polite and, most importantly, obedient person. And if you treat children kindly, they will grow up spoiled and dissolute.

I'm trying to point out that authoritarians are probably not so straightforward, that in their minds, strictness is not synonymous with brutal violence, shouting, cursing, that the matter here is something more complicated. Spock asks me not to interrupt him (he likes to express his thoughts to the end, exhaustively, and he does this with methodical accuracy and consistency). Again he emphasizes that he has never been a supporter of permissiveness, that there are different manners of education, individual handwriting. And this is how I understood Dr. Spock: one can also prefer strict upbringing, based on ease in dealing with the child. If you have chosen a strict parenting style, then you need to be consistent in this manner. Moderate severity in the sense of demanding good manners, obedience, neatness, following a routine, etc. will not harm the child if the parents’ actions are based on kindness and if conditions are created for children to grow up happy and sociable. Spock professes such rigor as one of the most important parts of his pedagogical and medical credo.

– What does “happy and sociable” mean? - I ask. – We are truly obsessed with sociability. They say that communication is the main means of education. I think that for real happy child can feel himself only when he himself does something important and significant.

– Children should feel free emotionally. They must know that their initiative will not be suppressed or ridiculed. My stepdaughter Virginia loves loud music. I can't stand cacophony, but I won't stop Virginia from listening to the music at full volume. We soundproofed her room.

– Children should grow up in an atmosphere of love and freedom. And the tone of communication between adults and children can be different. Parents can speak loudly to their children, but this does not mean that they are authoritarian. Children are especially sensitive to distinguishing where they are treated poorly and where they are treated well.

- Undoubtedly. But there is also such authoritarian strictness when parents are rude to the child, when they are constantly dissatisfied with him, are suspicious, and do not make allowances for age and individual differences. In such conditions, the child grows up to be a cowardly, colorless or cruel person.

Spock seems to distinguish between two types of severity. Strictness based on kindness, and severity mixed with irritability, intolerance, and bitterness. The latter forms a cruel person, and sometimes an embittered criminal.

I follow the thought of Spock, who reminds me: he spoke about this in detail in his books.

I am silent not because I did not know these thoughts of Spock, but because I am also convinced that all this is not so simple, that behind all these generally correct reasonings of the doctor there is something more that Spock did not touch upon in their books. Whether he felt these expectations of mine, I don’t know, but he understood perfectly well that I expected from him some kind of special dialectic of mutual transition and interconnection of different manners of upbringing, which he revealed in his conversation. In general, everything looked like this: severity does not exclude softness, and softness without severity is dangerous.

12. Pedagogy of Love and Freedom is combined with the philosophy of non-violence

With gentle treatment, as with strict treatment, Spock says, you can raise an obedient child, if your upbringing is based on respect for the personality of your son or daughter. The point is not that parents prefer ease of treatment and do not insist on absolute obedience and accuracy. Another thing is more important: for a child to love people, this will help raise a person who is sociable and attentive to other people... And again, a reservation, as if returning the outline of his thoughts to the very first circle on which rigor based on kindness is located. Gentleness will then give a positive result if parents are not afraid to show firmness in those issues that they consider especially important.

– With a gentle upbringing, you can get a bad result?

“Of course,” Spock asserts, again dissatisfied with the fact that I wedged myself into his well-coordinated formations. – And this happens when parents do not expect the child to understand their needs, when they mindlessly obey the child, when they infringe on themselves in their human and parental rights. When overly gentle parents produce annoying, spoiled children, it is not at all because the parents spoiled the children, but because they were embarrassed or afraid to insist on their demands, or because they unconsciously encouraged children's despotism.

13. It is necessary to instill in the child the need for work

We must not forget that the entire American education system is filled with work. It takes the greatest patience to make work a child's need. This patience is perhaps the most important method of personality formation.

I told Spock that American children work hard. They earn money. For example, fourteen-year-old Mark McCaffey, the son of a farmer, has enough money in his account to buy, say, a motorcycle and then a studio apartment. He made his own money. From the age of three he participated in watering the garden. At least that's what he told me himself. Spock listens and nods his head: this is so common in America... I noticed that our children do not have the opportunity to earn money, although children would love to work. Spock shrugs: this, they say, is not the most important thing. He suddenly began to talk about the excessive gentleness of parents as a harmful phenomenon in American family education, as the most acute problem that arose because the current generation of parents does not want to treat their children as second-class citizens, scold them and deprive them of everything. Many parents do not recognize rigor as a pedagogical value, and the new social and psychological attitudes they have acquired, designed to educate with kindness, are not supported by a clear understanding of firm pedagogical leadership, which must certainly exclude any kind of licentiousness and permissiveness. Thus, the parents seemed to be halfway there.

Best method education, according to Spock, is a “method of patience,” which does not mean permissiveness, but rather the parental ability to wait. If the child does not respond to encouragement, then punishment will only worsen the matter, so you need to wait, avoiding irritation and despair, allow the child to show his independence and autonomy and, choosing a convenient moment, return to his demands.

14. The feeling of love is formed by love

Only someone who knows how to love can teach a child to love people. True love is extremely difficult, because love, like freedom, obliges, uncompromisingly demands to give the best that is in a person. True love is always a resolution of the contradiction between the creative self and the moral norm.

Spock, like Sukhomlinsky, considers the need for another person the need to love people. Teaching a child kindness is the main focus of a parent’s educational actions. If a child fails to love people, then it will be impossible to even teach him superficial manners.

– But what does it mean to teach to love people? What kind of people? How is this possible in a society built on injustice? Where is the limit of true kindness that meets true citizenship?

I'm clearly getting into trouble with my questions. No, I'm not getting into a political argument with Spock. Benjamin Spock formulated his position quite clearly. But for me, the answer to the question always seems to remain in the shadows, somewhere in the unclear depths - what is the essence of human kindness...

15. A true educator, a true father and a man is always a citizen who loves his neighbors

I see Spock in two dimensions. In one - Spock, for whom everything is correct, wise, majestic: rich, loved, has achieved the most important thing in life - to say out loud, without looking back, everything he thinks about, without hiding his convictions. And it’s not just his Olympic and political victories, the fact that he was recognized by the world’s public, he is also humanly happy: here is my young wife, here are my talented sons, my grandchildren, my hobbies, my beautiful yachts. And for such a Spock there are no special problems in love. Here love is limited to methodological advice, here its universal meaning is narrowed down to an elementary universal norm of action, mandatory micro principles that are characteristic of the human race. Indeed, if a sick person asks for water, everyone will bring it to him - and there will be no love in this, there will be no moral content. For there is no choice here, there is no contradiction between the personal creative “I” and the moral norm...

But there is another Spock. Daring to speak out against the centuries-old hierarchy of violence, humiliation, and despotism. Decided to go through difficult trials for his beliefs. This is a suffering Spock, a Spock who happily escaped harsh punishment in an unjust society.

And for such a Spock, kindness becomes a problem directly related to the fundamental issues of social life. This is where the search begins. Let me note again: where it came to the concerns of a pediatrician, where Spock was a specialist, he gave comprehensive answers. And where the complex inconsistency went beyond his competence, where a serious and deep philosophical, ethical and psychological analysis is needed, Spock turned out to be somewhat helpless. I would like, using some analogy, to outline the connection between the civic beliefs of a teacher and his methods of communicating with children...

Ushinsky... All great teachers have a striking similarity. Even in views of kindness there is severity and love. And the connection between macro attitudes and micro techniques is similar. In his family, Ushinsky, like Spock, was kind and strict towards children. And him tender love did not exclude severe demands. This is how his daughter V.K. Ushinskaya (Poto) writes about this in her memoirs about her father: “And in their treatment of us there was far from love for us from our parents or admiration of us, affection without end... But on the contrary, it was felt with an attentive attitude there is some kind of restraint towards us. Affection was a rarity, but the rarity, it seems, was especially felt and was not forgotten for a long time. Maybe Father would have caressed us more often, but there were a lot of us, and maybe the fear of offending one of us was part of the reason, and a sense of justice for all of us was his special feature... Another side of his attitude We, children, were subject to strict persecution of doing our little children's tasks. This was reflected both in the lessons and activities with us, and in the demand from us for the children’s help that we, especially the elders, could provide in a family setting... Even then, he rarely allowed us to express categorical opinions and criticize with the air of experts what was above our judgment."

16. Love, freedom and work are the main virtues

So, three virtues: love for children, based on freedom and justice, work as a form of self-development, and freedom of thought, based on the depth of cognizable culture.

And these three virtues are inextricably linked with Ushinsky’s entire worldview, his political and philosophical credo, with his powerful idea of ​​nationality and faith in human progress. I involuntarily compare some of the positions of Ushinsky and Spock on such an important issue as the attitude towards militarism. The Russian teacher, just as sharply as the famous American later, spoke out against war and violence.

The attitude towards Ushinsky on the part of the authorities and officialdom was also corresponding. His books, like Spock's, are considered harmful; many find that they have a bad influence on young people and corrupt them. Ushinsky wrote about this in one of his private letters to Comrade Minister of Education I.D. Delyanov: “...name harmful books puts the most offensive stamp on my entire teaching career. What is this for? Is it really because I always walked the straight path?”

No, of course, Ushinsky was persecuted not because he professed “methodological kindness” (more affection and less severity), but for his spirit, for his attitude, which was expressed in loyalty to the Decembrist ideas, the oath formulated by him in his youth in Ryleev’s words : “It is known to me: destruction awaits the one who first rises up against the oppressors of the people”; for his collaboration with Sovremennik, for his solidarity with the liberation movement of the sixties, for his fiery love for the people.

Three “methodological virtues,” so to speak, at the micro level, are connected with their foundation on macro principles: love for the people, work that saves everyone from exploitation, a fair, enlightened structure of society. No, everything is not so simple with this very kindness. It is no coincidence that the problem of kindness in philosophy and pedagogy has worried human minds for centuries.

The concept of kindness, like the concepts of love and freedom, inevitably turns into scholastic if it is divorced from the current concerns of the working person, the injustice that reigns in the world.

And when I saw that Spock understood this well, he grew even more in my eyes.

17. Parent – ​​Teacher and Prophet

No matter how parents isolate themselves within the framework of their family, the destinies of children are still connected with the vast social world, with the cosmos of human existence, with the Divine principles of the universe. That is why a parent is both a Teacher and a Prophet: in good souls and loving father and mothers have something of holiness, of the Lord God.

Two global world ideas converge in all of Spock’s activities, in his entire appearance, in every movement, in every statement. This is the idea of ​​the child’s fate, his happiness, his well-being. And the second is the idea of ​​humanity, the idea of ​​saving life. Therefore, Spock introduces his two main positions on earth: “I will draw on my experience as a pediatrician, as well as an opponent of the Vietnam War.” It was with these words that he began his speech at the plenary session of the international festival in Artek. And Spock develops these main, global ideas in this way:

– Schools can be a powerful tool in instilling respect and love for all peoples and races. Schools should instill an aversion to war and all forms of violence. This aspect is generally neglected in the United States, partly because we have not had a battle (or bombing) on ​​our soil for over two hundred years, otherwise the horror of war would be fresh in the memory of the people. Another reason is that the United States has accepted other types of violence since the time of the first settlers: violence against the indigenous population of America - Indians, as well as blacks. And in more recent years, violent television programs and films produced at the request of industrial circles interested in selling their goods. Research clearly shows that violence on screen stimulates the desire to commit real violence in some viewers, and also lowers overall moral standards. American reactionary circles encouraged the emergence of certain tendencies - for example, rugged individualism, cutthroat competition to the detriment of humane values. This has largely led to the high level of crime and the ease with which the leaders of our country drag it into wars and other, no less tragic types of intervention...

It seems to me that Spock became a great teacher precisely because his private teaching and medical activities were on par with the scale of world problems. After all, pedagogy is inseparable from politics. And the question of why and how we raise children inevitably leads to problems of government structure and problems of relationships between peoples. Today we are surrounded by war. Children are dying. Hundreds of thousands of families remain homeless. But even in these harsh conditions, the educational process in the family cannot stop. Every day, parents are forced to solve problems of children's development, their physical and spiritual growth. Every parent is faced with the need to organize their life, learning, play, and creativity. The formation of children's integrity is extremely important here. Integrity as harmony, which appears, more than anywhere else, as the unity of the different, where the different reveals itself in a child’s imagery, in a child’s character, in a child’s brightness, in a child’s originality, in a child’s inexhaustible energy.

18. Learn from Nature

The ecology of childhood and the ecology of education call on us, parents and teachers, to learn from the great mother - Nature. Observe how roses and cornflowers grow, how bees and ants, spruce and birch trees, apple and cherry trees live, and you will discover many secrets of the true art of educational practice.

Spock's books have become pedagogical bestsellers, because Spock, even when he talks about a child's attitude to food, sleep, clothing, even when he talks about dietary habits, about fats, starch, sugar, does not lose the specificity of his understanding of childhood. This is not just the accessibility of the presentation, it is also the integrity of the vision, which, through the concreteness of the image, conveys the necessary nature of the attitude towards a growing person, where kindness, laughter, play, and encouragement are always present.

Literature, like pedagogy, has one subject - man, his world, his contradictions, his joys and anxieties. In addition, current pedagogy, both ours and foreign, sometimes makes the same mistake: it does not use artistic generalization as a method of analyzing children’s lives, in which the typicality of certain states of childhood is holistically and indivisibly conveyed. It is sad that the word “empirical” in the meaning of pedagogical specificity has become almost abusive, and the influence of the teacher’s personality on the child’s soul is considered something secondary - on the grounds that science supposedly studies not personal influences, but the actions of “forms, methods, means”, etc. This neglect of the truly human problems of the educational process deprives pedagogy of the fullness of life, brightness and imagery of the transmission of genuine processes that take place in communication between adults and children. And this is explained by two reasons. The first is ignorance, reluctance and inability to understand the nature of childhood. And the second is a passion for schemes, which inevitably turns into scientism and scholasticism.

In pedagogy, both large-scale and small things that make up the essence of human life are organically combined. And what is close is what directly shapes. And the distant is what is a guarantee of certain living conditions: political, economic, labor, aesthetic. And this scale certainly passes through the thinnest capillaries of the “small”, through the narrowness of what is close, through the psychological mechanisms of personality development... When uttering such highly intelligent words, you involuntarily think that the child is a natural being. It grows regardless of influences and psychological mechanisms. More precisely, he rather overcomes these influences, outstripping the influence of educators. His microcosm itself is large-scale and is a kind of pedagogical space. When we unexpectedly notice how apples are growing, or grapes are ripening, or tomatoes are turning red, or suddenly we notice that the grass is turning green, we are recording sharp growth milestones, sharp changes in nature. In children, these changes are just as dramatic and significant, only we adults often don’t notice them, or rather, we often notice them very late. Most often, the child himself declares his changes, sometimes stating rudely and persistently, as if insisting that he, the child, is no longer the same today as he was yesterday. Children are extremely close to nature and therefore, perhaps, sometimes seem wise and all-seeing; That’s probably why people say: through the mouths of babes the truth speaks. By the way, we do not notice children’s wisdom, we do not give it due importance, because in the normal manifestations of a child’s spiritual growth we see willfulness or maximalism. Meanwhile, teenage maximalism is not characteristic older children, but rather a milestone, the beginning of the process of growing up. A teenager, once at this point, behaves differently, is prone to actions whose consequences are often unpredictable, and the teacher needs to predict the appearance of dangerous symptoms. Of course, the psychological states of a teenager in different social conditions manifest themselves specifically and can lead either to the complete collapse of the personality, or to the moral, emotional, and aesthetic rise of all the powers of a growing person. Be that as it may, this psychological pattern has been noticed by psychologists, teachers, and writers. By the way, by turning to literary heroes, the teacher turns out to be more armed both psychologically and emotionally.

I have long noticed that the teacher often correctly perceives the literary hero-boy, imbued with his worries, anxieties, and joys. But seeing the same child in life, she treats him differently. Who among the literature teachers did not sympathize with, say, the Dubov fugitive, who had bad grades, conflicts in the family, and vagrancy? And how many such children stood in the teachers' rooms in their lives, and how the same language teachers scolded the children, did not believe their sincere arguments, because their appearance did not inspire confidence, frightened, repulsive: buttons torn, trousers in the dirt, abrasions on the arms... all of him , this little boy, is full of anger, impatience - oh, how this all sometimes irritates the pedagogical “I”. I don’t remember a class or school where there wasn’t such a maximalist-minded boy. More precisely, where they were not, the life of the children's group turned into sickening boredom, and discipline degenerated into disgusting humble obedience, when any injustice was taken for granted, hushed up, drowned in indifference.

I recently met with my student Lenya Somov. How in his time he was carried to the heights of maximalism, how he accused the children, teachers, parents - everything was not according to the rules, everything was dishonest. And the girls are such cunning beasts, and the comrades are such nonentities, and the teachers - don’t put your finger in their mouth: they will deceive you.

In these moments of raging teenage denial, it’s as if all a person’s energy explodes, the intensity of passion appears such that he is ready to destroy both others and himself. How to remove this condition? How to help? How to come to the aid of a child? Pushing energy inside is like trying to stop a bullet from a fired gun! And this same energy, which just seemed destructive and destructive, suddenly, if directed in time, becomes a creative force, that only binding material, without which there can be no formation of either a collective or an individual.

19. Create social and moral education

True education cannot be non-democratic, non-social, non-civic. By raising a strong moral personality, we actually create the moral field that organizes the moral environment, creates moral social education that shapes Man and Citizen.

Sociality and citizenship cover both distant and near social boundaries, the microworld (communication with loved ones) and the macroworld - communication with distant people, with people of one’s own country, with people of other countries. Of course, modern children today are looking closely at how their peers live in the West. We have long been told that capitalism is bad. Now they suggest that capitalism is very good. But even there, in the West, there are their own troubles, there is their own desperate struggle for a just order of the world. And there, in the West, just like here, there are ascetics and truth-seekers who profess true Love for people and true Freedom. I cannot accept exploiters and reactionaries either here or in the West, and I teach this to my children.

No, I did not at all want to offend Benjamin Spock when I began to say that the nature of kindness is determined by the nature of the distribution of goods.

– I don’t know, how do you imagine capitalists? – Spock said somewhat irritably. – I also belong to this world to some extent. When talking about the cruelty of capitalists, some distortions are allowed. In their personal lives, capitalists are not cruel. They love their children and family. The head of the Du Pont dynasty was a great friend of my first wife's mother. And he constantly spoke sincerely about his love for his driver. But at the same time, he fought fiercely with trade unions who fought to improve the situation of General Motors workers. These people treated the workers like leeches. And this idea of ​​workers as leeches has developed because they are very far from them. Many sociological studies confirm that people easily develop feelings of fear towards those they do not know well.

It is difficult for me to determine what Spock meant when he noted that it was very good that Artek invited him, Spock, and many others to visit him. But his final phrase: “We are the same as them...” sounded to me like this: “Many capitalists are not our enemies.” And Spock explained: “Capitalists are valued by the profits they achieve. And this pursuit of profit sometimes blinds them from the opportunity to see the people, improve their lives, medical care, and education.”

Spock's strength lies in the originality of his contradictions. With the entire course of his judgments, he affirms collectivism as the main link in education. And he opposes collectivism - for purely political reasons. He is for personal development – ​​comprehensive and harmonious. And he understands perfectly well that it is impossible in a society of inequality. Spock advocates the flourishing of consciousness and focuses on the Freudian unconscious. He advocates for instilling respect for teachers and parents, and he also encourages, when necessary, to resist the attitudes of teachers and parents. He fights for children’s initiative, for complete independence. And he appeals to firm leadership, without which there can be no education.

20. Humanism is contradictory and always requires development and adjustments. Humanism without movement is spiritual death

Spock is a pragmatist. But his pragmatism, based on common sense and the human wisdom of working America, is reasonable. And since the entire anti-authoritarian orientation of Spock’s pedagogy is associated with the denial of the existing system of exploitation, and political lies, and the economic structure of American society, the general humanistic position is clearly visible in any seemingly pragmatic explanation of a method or technique.

Spock is the subverter of those “values” that are against man. Therefore, his humanism is effective. Humanism is his ideal, his religion. Of course, I did not learn everything about Spock, but, knowing the general orientation of the progressive, humanistic pedagogy of the West, I was inclined to conclude that we have and should have common ground, especially in the interpretation of private methods of education. I started talking to Spock about Sukhomlinsky and his ideas. Spock perked up noticeably.

I do not undertake to compare the ideas of Sukhomlinsky and Spock; These are different teachers in many ways. They have different characters different field activities. One is a school director, the other is a pediatrician. But they have a lot in common, since both Sukhomlinsky and Spock have absorbed those progressive values ​​that have always been dear to humanity in the fight against various forms of dehumanization of education. What they have in common is that they both created good pedagogies. And of course, the fact that such a progressive thinker as Spock ended up in the United States of America is also noteworthy because Spock’s political views are intertwined with his pedagogical guidelines. Spock expressed the universal humanity in education, which is why he conquered the world.

21. All reactionary educational systems have always laid claim to humanism, democracy and citizenship

Paradoxical as it may seem, even outstanding teachers were often mistaken in their assessment of certain social and pedagogical phenomena.

No offense to Spock, but then, in 1975, when I, like a hunted wolf, was pursued from all sides by functionaries and high-ranking officials, I was unpleasant when he said that the USSR was the country with the most perfect system.

He also knows an equally just country - this is Israel. He equated the country and the children. He constantly emphasized that he regretted that not 32 million American schoolchildren came to Artek, but only 32 teenagers. It was impossible to tear Spock away from the children: he peered into their faces, played with them, asked questions, answered questions, touched them with his hands. He organically fit into this amazing kingdom of children's joy. His major pedagogical line seemed to find fertile ground among sociable, trusting and open children from our country and socialist countries, countries of Africa and Asia. And, as one might expect, he was drawn to Vietnamese children: Benjamin Spock's high international feeling merged with his kind understanding of childhood. I involuntarily compare the pedagogical intonations of Spock and Sukhomlinsky. The sad, deeply moral position of the latter is especially dear to me (to teach a child to see in other people’s eyes not only joy, but also grief, loneliness, hopelessness; to teach a child to love children, mother, father, grandfather, grandmother, his home, his native land), his focus on nurturing such qualities as empathy, compassion, complicity, cooperation, his constant appeals to human conscience, to its individual boundaries, to the uncompromisingness of moral norms.

- How? Teach to love? Is it possible? - Spock asks me.

Country of residence: Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Two years ago I got married. At that time, we didn’t even have any thoughts of staying in Kazakhstan, because my husband spoke very little Russian. He has his own business in Malaysia, in Kuala Lumpur, and that's why we moved here. In the future, of course, I would like to move back to Kazakhstan, because I miss my family, the weather, and especially the food. And my husband also likes Kazakhstan.

Life in Malaysia is different from Kazakhstan. I'm not working right now. A When I worked, we shared all household responsibilities with my husband. That is, I clean the house, and he cooks dinner. I wash the dishes and he throws out the trash. That is, it wasn’t like we came home from work, and he went to bed, and I did everything myself. All together, team work.

If we talk about traditions, I remember I had a culture shock when I saw how the Malays greeted their elders. When meeting, younger Malays kiss the hand of the older one and bring it to their forehead. I thought: “What is this anyway?” Now I like this tradition. I think this shows respect for the older generation.

When meeting, younger Malays kiss the hand of the older one and bring it to their forehead

Weddings are completely different from Kazakhstani ones. If in Kazakhstan, getting ready, hairstyles, and make-up are important for guests, then here everything is simple: there is a banquet, and it lasts two hours. There are two types of weddings - traditional and more modern. The traditional wedding takes place in the morning, around 10-11. 500, 1000, 2000 people come, and there are no feasts, just a buffet. We have also been to modern weddings a couple of times. Regardless of the venue, the food is very simple: bone soup, rice and chicken. Two hours - and the wedding ends. Nobody is dancing. There was no white dance at our wedding, although this is customary in Kazakhstan, but for the locals, dancing is a sign of disrespect for elders.

Due to the fact that Malaysia is a Muslim country, women are treated with more respect. There was such a case when relatives came to us for a wedding, and my husband’s parents invited everyone to their home. And all the women sat, and the men carried food and cleared away the dishes. And this is what I really like.

Relationships between family members are different. We are more united. In Malay families, everyone is on their own. No one interferes with sibling relationships. Parents mostly live separately.

In Malay families, everyone is on their own

The main difficulty in our relationship was the language barrier, which our relatives could not overcome. We realized this when my husband’s family came to Kazakhstan to get married. And if mom speaks a little English, then dad only knows a couple of words. It’s good that my sisters and brother know the language - it helped.

We found it pretty quickly mutual language, because at the time we met, I had already lived in Malaysia for several years and knew what and how. The only moment of misunderstanding was the situation when my friend asked to meet her father, but I had not met him before. He came to Kuala Lumpur and I needed to show him the city. I told my husband about this, and he was surprised and asked: “Do you know this man?” I said no, to which he asked the question: “How can you communicate with a person you don’t know?” I had to explain that this is how it is with us, and even if you don’t know the person, you meet, see off and feed him. He experienced this personally when he came to Kazakhstan for the first time. I was busy at work and didn’t have time to show him the city. My little sister and brother were walking with him.

In general, Malays and Kazakhs are similar. And in culture, and in mentality, and even externally. When my husband comes to Kazakhstan, they often speak to him in Russian, because they think that he is either Kazakh or Uyghur. People also often speak to me in Malay because they think I'm Malay.

Konstantin Ryabov, 30 years old, hometown - Karaganda

Country of residence: Fort Myers, Florida, USA

I left Kazakhstan for the States in 2015. I met my wife in 2008, when I was studying at an American university, and we got married 2 years later. The wedding was held in the States, and then almost immediately we went to Kazakhstan, to Karaganda. Since 2010 we lived and worked there. And one day my wife said: “Let’s go to my house now?”, after which, in December 2015, we moved.

Life in the city, regardless of the country, is similar - work, home. The only difference is in everyday life. In America they cook less. The food industry is more developed than ours, and therefore going to a restaurant or cafe is not a big event.

The mentality is not very different, and life is similar to Kazakhstan. The wife's family is large: the parents have many brothers and sisters. They don’t meet so often in everyday life, because they live in different cities and states, but they definitely gather for big events, like weddings. The very idea of ​​such family gatherings is the same. But if in Kazakhstan we have this feast with toasts, then here it is more like a big party.

Due to the fact that family members often live far from each other, grandparents are not as actively involved in the lives of their grandchildren as we are

Due to the fact that family members often live far away from each other, grandparents are not as actively involved in the lives of their grandchildren as we are. They pay more attention to parents' opinions and give less advice.

I just met my wife’s parents. In August 2008, I flew to the States before the start of my studies and came home to stay with my future wife. I met close relatives at various family events even before the wedding, but there were also those whom I met only once at the ceremony.

Our relationship was not particularly affected by cultural differences. All controversial issues depend, rather, on the differences between people. Maybe the generation before me would have had a big difference in mentality, but due to the fact that American culture has been quite popular since the 90s, their way of life and views are familiar and understandable.

Our daughter was born in 2014, and while she was little, before moving, she watched cartoons in Russian, understood something, and tried to speak. As soon as we started living in the States, she quickly changed her mind and forgot the Russian language. Now she is almost four years old, and she actively speaks English, but only knows a couple of phrases in Russian. When communicating with my parents on the phone, alas, he only uses “Hello” and “Bye.”

Layla Akbaeva, 42 years old, hometown - Karaganda

Country of residence: Sao Paulo, Brazil

I left Kazakhstan for England to study. There she met her future husband. ABOUT n Italian and by that time had already lived abroad for 15 years, and therefore we quickly came to an understanding.

Italy has its own traditions and customs, which differ markedly from those accepted in Kazakhstan. For example, acquaintance with parents took place in an informal setting. My future husband and I were flying to Malta, and there was a two-hour layover in Rome. His parents came to have lunch with us and that’s how we met: without any unnecessary formality, very simply. We met the rest of our relatives in the summer, when a large family gathered to relax in a summer house. In Italy, family events are not held in the format of a feast, since everyone can have dinner separately and meet afterwards. More important than a meal is communication.

Let me note that in Italian families there is an important tradition: to have lunch with your mother on Sunday. You won't meet people on the streets, in shops, because 90% of them have lunch with their family. Respect for elders is something that Kazakhstani society is reminiscent of and something that we instill in our children.

Let me note that in Italian families there is an important tradition: to have lunch with your mother on Sunday

When raising children, we still rely on the upbringing that we ourselves received and choose the best. In our family, we adhere to English standards, clearly planning the day and taking things seriously. Despite the fact that we live in Brazil, the children attend an English school and various clubs. When we need to manage everything, we resort to a daily routine.

In any question, we try to explain why it is better this way and not another. For example, in England children go to bed at 6-7 pm, but in Brazil children can walk on the street even at 9-11. When children want to go for a walk late, I give them a choice, explaining that they can go for a walk late, but the next day they will have to get up early, and they are unlikely to get up refreshed and well-rested. It is important to explain the reason. In Kazakhstan, for some reason, they forget about this, answering with a simple “because.”

In our family we adhere to English standards, clearly planning the day and taking things seriously

In Kazakhstan, a person’s personal life is little valued. Relatives can arrive at any time, and you have to put things off and not pay attention to your condition. We tell children that they need to pay attention to personal plans, and if you want to go on a visit, then you need to warn whoever it is. Every weekend we discuss who wants to do what, and decide together how we will spend our time.

According to the law, 10 weeks after the birth of the baby, the French mother must already go to work. But French women are not at all against this state of affairs: they themselves strive to return to service as soon as possible so as not to lose their qualifications, continue to build a career and earn money, because life in France is far from cheap. They prefer to give half of what they earn to a nanny and housekeeper rather than sit at home. Women who devote themselves entirely to caring for children are a rarity in French society, where they are called “mother hens.” By the way, mother hens have been found here much more often in recent years. Grandparents rarely take care of their grandchildren, maintaining neutrality in the matter of upbringing. They visit them on weekends and holidays, sometimes they can take them to the section and take them on vacation.

In France, children are encouraged to sleep separately almost from birth, ideally in a separate room. It is considered normal to let a child “cry out” if he is out of sorts. It is typical that all children have a “dudu” - a plush toy with which they sleep and carry it with them everywhere. Dudu is bought for a newborn to develop reflexes, but many children do not part with them until they are 8-10 years old. There is an opinion that the love for “dood”, as well as the universal habit of children in France sucking nipples, fingers and biting nails, begins precisely with the early separation of the baby from his mother. It’s interesting that parents never bundle up their children, feed them “adult” food from the age of two, and generally don’t “shake” over them, like many of our mothers.

The French mother will not adapt to the child, her motto is: “Here I decide.” Mothers often use “no” and “wait” when communicating with children, teaching them patience and obedience. At the same time, parents distinguish between the concepts of “little pranks” and “bad behavior”, not paying attention to the first and adequately punishing for the second. They may shout at the child if he crosses the boundaries, but in general, French children have much more freedom than, for example, Russian ones. On the playground, no parent will interfere in the fun and “showdowns” of children if they do not pose a threat to health.

In the absence of a nanny, the child is assigned to a nursery almost from birth, then to a kindergarten or school. State policy stimulates intensive development preschool education. Early socialization, according to the French, only benefits the baby (and this is quite fair) - he learns to draw, play, make friends faster and more organically, and masters household skills and discipline rules. Parents are not keen on early education methods; teaching numbers and the alphabet on their own ahead of time, much less boasting about their child’s achievements, is not accepted here.

The main feature of raising children in France is the complete lack of perfectionism among their parents. Yes, they are not perfect, but they know how to embrace life and teach this to their children.