Humanistic paradigm of modern teacher education. Humanistic paradigm of modern education

SECTION I

CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATIONS OF EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY

UDC 159.9.01+378

Korneenkov Sergey Semenovich

Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Associate Professor of the Department of Sociology and Social Psychology, Pacific State University of Economics, kogpeepkom55@uaps1ex. gi, Vladivostok

HUMANISTIC PARADIGM IN THE HIGHER EDUCATION SYSTEM

Korneenkov Sergey Semienovich

Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Senior lecturer/ of The Chair of Sociology and Social psychology of the Pacific State University of Economics, [email protected], Vladivostok

HUMANISTIC APPROACH IN HIGHER EDUCATION

The education system is one of the main foundations and the influential force that shapes and develops the consciousness of every person. The problem of the quality of education is especially acute in university pedagogy, where the authority of science and the personality of the teacher has a huge impact on the personality of the student. Today's student, tomorrow's specialist, turns out to be untenable in life if personality development and the disclosure of individuality have not become the dominant direction in his learning and self-discovery. Therefore, the issues of humanitarization of education are especially relevant. The urgency of this issue is also due to the fact that at the socio-pedagogical level there is a contradiction between the orientation of domestic education towards democratic principles and the traditional, established system of education and training.

The problem of humanitarization did not arise by chance. It has its own history and its own path of development. The humanistic approach matured in the depths of traditional pedagogy, and its roots are lost in the distant past of both foreign (Ya. A. Komensky, M. Montessori, etc.) and Russian pedagogy (K. D. Ushinsky, L. N. Tolstoy, K. . N. Ventzel and others). In Russian philosophy, psychology, and pedagogy there is a rich heritage in the study of this area, but, unfortunately, it is far from being fully used.

Foreign philosophers, psychologists and teachers made a huge contribution to the development of the humanistic paradigm (K. Rogers, A. Maslow, A. Adler, K. G. Jung, R. Assagioli, E. Fromm, R. May, etc.).

The works of R. A. Valeeva, A. A. Valeev widely represent the theory and practice of humanistic education in European pedagogy. The history of humanistic pedagogy in Russia, using the example of a school collective, is comprehensively examined in the monograph by L. N. Kulikova.

Higher education, which for many years was based on the methodology of orthodox Marxism, today is in search of a new philosophy and ethics, a new paradigm for teaching adequate human nature. This approach in recent years it has become fundamental in the educational and pedagogical practice of higher education, where the main principles should be humanization, democratization and humanitarization, aimed at the implementation of the humanistic paradigm of education. The humanitarianization of education is closely connected “with culture, spirituality, morality, conscientiousness, humanistic goals and motives of a person,” notes V.P. Zinchenko, in contrast to technocracy, where a person’s selfishness and the unpredictability of his behavior are especially clearly manifested.

V. Dilthey wrote about the division of science into natural (sciences about the external world) and humanitarian (sciences about the spirit) directions. He noted that the sciences of the spirit must develop their own methods and techniques of research, with the help of which one could approach the knowledge of the truth. We explain nature, emphasizes V. Dilthey, but we comprehend spiritual life. The psychic is always a process that constantly arises and immediately disappears. Processuality, fluidity, impermanence of mental life, however, does not deny its organization, order, it is an ordered disorder.

Detailed description of the difference natural sciences from the humanities is presented in the work of V. M. Rozin. He notes that “a humanitarian scientist must constantly monitor whether he is dealing with the same object or whether the latter has long slipped out of the theoretical networks, changed, developed..., or whether the researcher’s own view of the object has changed.” The ideal of humanities has not yet been fully formed. As for psychology and pedagogy, they are decisively shifting their scientific orientations towards the humanities. “Psychology should be guided by the humanitarian paradigm,” notes V. M. Rozin, but it should not depart from practice, and this is its natural scientific feature and significance. After all, a person obeys the laws of both the external and internal world.

The humanities and natural sciences are currently developing separately from each other, they are even opposed. What is humanitarian knowledge? The object of the humanities is not natural phenomena and objects, but cultural and spiritual manifestations of life. Humanities are interested in knowledge that allows us to better understand people in this world. Her interest is not directed at technology, but at relationships between people, groups, i.e., at society. In the humanities, the object and subject

ect are equivalent and their knowledge is equally important for a person studying nature. The objects of study of the humanities are phenomena with which the researcher himself is in direct relationships; he, as it were, creates these objects, enters into “living” relationships with them. Such objects include culture, education, religion, history, sociology, works of art, people, language, and creativity.

Humanitarianization in education follows from a broader concept - humanism. Humanism is a universal concept that affirms the attitude towards man as the highest value, his right to freedom, happiness, self-determination, and the creative manifestation of his own spiritual and physical powers. This is a worldview based on the good of every person. It is necessary that education become humane, independent of ideologies, bring benefit to all humanity and become a reliable basis for educating a spiritual, moral citizen of the Earth. Educational technologies adopted in Western and Eastern cultures have different historical and methodological foundations. The West views man as a biological and social being, which is also characteristic of Russian pedagogy. In the East, man is treated as a spiritual being. For a humanistic approach to learning to become an integrating factor in education, it is necessary to fully recognize the cultural values ​​of each people, and therefore the corresponding methods of teaching and self-development. Domestic education should accept the best from both Western and Eastern worldviews, integrating the principles of training, education and self-development of a person into a single whole.

The humanistic paradigm assumes that the center of educational relations is the person, his spiritual development, the formation of moral and volitional qualities, and the creative abilities of the individual. The humanistic approach to education reflects the constant connection of the individual with his soul and, through it, with the souls of all people. Humanitarianization of education implies a way out of the influence of the technocratic learning paradigm and the transition of education to a humanistic paradigm.

The main ideas of the humanistic paradigm of education, in our opinion, are four basic provisions:

1. The development, training and education of a person must be based on universal human values.

2. The idea of ​​personality as a whole, of its unconditional value and uniqueness.

3. Regulations on cooperation in all types of activities and communication.

4. The idea of ​​human self-development.

In this article, we will note the main essence of these principles in relation to the higher education system and give them new meaning according to the dictates of the time.

The implementation of the principles of humanism in the educational process means the manifestation in the individual of universal human values ​​that are significant

not for a limited circle of people, class or state, but for all mankind, although not everyone expresses them in the same way. Their features depend on the cultural and historical development of a particular country.

Acceptance of universal human values ​​means deideologization, emphasis on the intellectual, spiritual, moral and aesthetic development of the individual. In philosophical terms, we can say that these are the transcendental qualities and values ​​of humanity that are universal in nature. From the position of religion, these values ​​have a divine nature.

Universal human values ​​are permanent, enduring in nature and act as an ideal, regulatory idea, and model of behavior for all people. Raising a person from a universal human perspective presupposes respect for the customs and laws of both one’s own people and country, and the peoples of other countries. True education is not so much the sum of knowledge, skills, abilities and abilities acquired from lectures, books and practical activities, it is internal activities mind and heart, leading to the revelation of human qualities and values. Human values ​​are inherent in an individual from birth, these are truth, righteousness, peace, love, non-violence, tolerance, compassion, benevolence, truthfulness, sacrifice, etc. These qualities are natural for any person. The one in whom they are developed is truly educated person. With the revelation of transpersonal qualities, selfishness, pride, hatred, anger, anger, envy, and selfishness disappear. Human qualities cannot be developed by mechanical, technical means, they are not a product of production, they cannot be sold or bought, they need to be brought out, revealed, educated, and this process should be facilitated in every possible way by the entire education system.

The category of personality and its integrity is one of the most complex and difficult to define concepts. This is not only a category of psychology and pedagogy; this concept is widely used in sociology, cultural studies, philosophy, anthropology and many other disciplines. The formation of personality in psychology is understood as a process of its development, in pedagogy - as its purposeful upbringing. Psychology is called upon to study the objective-subjective laws of personality development; pedagogy determines the tasks, methods, and means of personality formation, i.e., it directs the personality towards a specific goal. Pedagogy develops teaching and educational technologies, studies techniques and ways to achieve set goals. Psychology studies the initial level of development of personal qualities in specific conditions of life, examines the results of efforts to train, develop, educate and self-development of a person. Pedagogy in the context of the technocratic paradigm sees the main goal of educating a socially adapted, socially useful personality. The humanistic paradigm in pedagogy puts the interests and values ​​of the individual first. It is the personality, its individuality that brings new values ​​into the world, which constantly renews the values ​​of society. Society -

eternal conservative, it is precisely this that strengthens stereotypes of behavior and thinking. Identification with society fetters the developing personality in the manifestation of its individuality, in the manifestation of transpersonal qualities, i.e., the qualities of the higher “I”. If we recognize that the basis of personality is the soul, its uniqueness, then all efforts of society and the state should be aimed not at preserving outgoing values, but at the speedy acceptance and multiplication of emerging values ​​that each individual entering into life carries.

Restructuring education is impossible without restructuring the concept of education. The school and the university, as E.D. Dneprov writes, work for only one address - for the state, which has actually turned the school into a closed, security institution. The interests and needs of the student are replaced by the interests of the state, which is reflected in uniformity, like-mindedness and unity of command. Total averaging of personality reflects the setting of the state education standard. If the personality does not grow, individuality does not manifest itself, then society does not develop, and social development is conserved.

Personality has an infinite number of facets, the manifestation of which is determined by numerous determinants. The possibilities of an individual are limitless and this is manifested not only in the number of her abilities, the breadth and depth of her intellect, talents, but also in her uniqueness and duality. Even an individual person can collect such a bouquet of abilities or the depth of their disclosure that his genius will forever go down in the history of human development. Of course, the concept of “person” is more capacious than the concept of “personality”. In modern psychology, a person is presented as a self-developing, self-regulating supersystem, and a person is a subject of independent and responsible solution of his own problems on the basis of cultural universal norms. In Christian anthropology, personality is understood as the ideal to which a person strives throughout his life. A person’s entire life is a constant struggle for the creation of a spiritual personality within himself. As noted

N. A. Berdyaev: “The secret of personality, its uniqueness, is not completely clear to anyone. The human personality is more mysterious than the world. She is the whole world. Man is a microcosm and contains everything.” In spiritual psychology, the personality serves as the organ of expression of the soul, and the more subordinate it is to the soul, the higher its consciousness. Personality is an integrated concept consisting of physical, energetic, emotional, mental and spiritual principles. The level of its evolution is determined by the degree of development of the principles, their harmonious coherence and unity with the higher “I”.

Man, from the very beginning of his inception, represents the integration of certain influences and energies, which gradually manifest themselves and reveal themselves in the personality. Firstly, this is the gene pool of all humanity, which is transmitted to the newborn through the parents. Secondly, the influence

external environment to the extent accessible to a given person. Thirdly, the influence of the energies of nature, earth and space. Harmonious development man achieves through the right combination, the right proportion of all the energies represented. Man is a small Universe and her life is as mysterious and unique as the life of the big Universe.

Man (humanity) is constantly growing and developing. We see this in the endless diversity and uniqueness of individuals who represent humanity and in the uniqueness of the culture of each nation. The integrity of personality is always relative, just as truth itself is relative. Just as there are no limits to the boundaries of the Universe, there are no limits to human development.

The humanistic approach in education is based on the provision of joint activity, cooperation between the personality-individuality of the teacher and the personality-individuality of the student. Collaboration during lectures and seminars allows the introduction of new teaching technologies with numerous proprietary methods. Paradoxically, it is cooperation that humanity needs to learn in all types of activities, and this must begin from early childhood.

The concept of “pedagogical cooperation” has been actively used in pedagogy since the late eighties. Collaboration pedagogy was born as a direction opposite to authoritarian-imperative pedagogy; it is one of the possible directions for democratization and humanization of the pedagogical process. The origins of pedagogical cooperation are lost in the depths of centuries. “Cooperation is a humanistic idea of ​​joint developmental activities of children and adults, cemented by mutual understanding, penetration into each other’s spiritual world, and collective analysis of the progress and results of this activity” - this is how I. A. Zimnyaya defines the concept of cooperation. In educational psychology, the phrase “educational cooperation” is most often used to emphasize the educational function, the teaching function of cooperation in joint activities.

The totalitarianism of society has actualized the need for the free development of man. The realization of such a need is impossible by the previous means; a new approach and new pedagogy, new principles of teaching and upbringing are needed, aimed at the formation of a spiritual, moral, free person. The pedagogy of cooperation, as noted by L. N. Kulikova, is aimed “at establishing relations of mutual understanding and active interaction between teachers and their students” [I, p. 230].

Cooperation as an alternative to competition and authoritarian pedagogical influence helps to restore equal relations between the learning parties - student and teacher. The general implementation of this model of relations is possible only in the system of the entire state reorganization: from an authoritarian-totalitarian to a democratic society. Emotional unity and love for all people serve

the basis of social and pedagogical cooperation. “Take away a person’s freedom, and you take away his true spiritual activity,” noted K. D. Ushinsky. Cooperation is possible provided that the freedom of another person is not oppressed, when “nature expresses itself freely” in a developing person. The basic quality in cooperative pedagogy is love and complete trust between teacher and student. According to A. N. Ostrogorodsky, when people avoid each other and are content with formal relationships, there can be no love between them. We “...would never advise a person who does not love children and young people to devote himself to teaching.”

Cooperation occurs when in training and education there is a place for dialogue between both parties, both on the surface layer of consciousness and on the deep one, affecting the soul of everyone participating in communication. It is in holistic, integral communication that people are able to correctly perceive and understand each other.

The implementation of the ideas of the humanistic approach is directly related to the idea of ​​human self-development. Currently, self-development is understood as the constant improvement of the processes of perception, memory, thinking, imagination; this is an increase in the level of integration of personal qualities, the development of morality, motives and needs. With this understanding, the process of personal self-development has been widely studied in traditional psychology and pedagogy. Human development essentially proceeds as self-development, that is, it is not directly determined external events, but by the internal laws of human development as an integrity. Even P.F. Kapterev noted that “upbringing is the improvement of a child’s self-development.” But often, the author continues, upbringing and education oppose the natural creative self-development of a person, that is, they are forced. Society needs not just specialists, because a specialist is only one of the many facets of a personality, a part of a whole being, “it is not a specialty that defines a person, it is not a part that determines the whole, but a person is a specialty, the whole is a part.” The teacher’s task is not so much to collect and transmit scientific information, but to teach students to collect knowledge themselves, to answer life’s questions themselves. Education should promote awareness of the importance of oneself as a holistic, harmonious individual. In self-knowledge, a person must learn to feel closely connected with the whole world and not be isolated from the world of other people.

Analysis of psychological and pedagogical literature allows us to identify many approaches to understanding the process of self-development. For example: two-component (L. A. Gromov), three-component (I. F. Kharlamov), five-component (V. I. Andreev), six-component (N. B. Krylov), nine-component (L. N. Kulikova). In all of the above models of self-development, the components are the internal forces of the individual, where the prefix “self” refers to certain aspects of the personality. For example, at

L. N. Kulikova is: self-knowledge, volitional self-regulation, self-education, self-improvement, spiritual self-assembly, self-affirmation, self-determination, self-actualization, self-realization. The given number of personality facets can be increased by giving them a positive, negative or neutral orientation. For example: self-creation, self-detachment, self-determination, self-renewal, self-creation, self-analysis, self-programming, self-control, self-correction, self-mobilization, self-discipline, self-judgment, self-conceit, self-denial, etc. Ultimately, all these aspects of a fragmented personality may reflect self-delusion, self-ignorance , self-praise, self-deception, self-delusion, self-indulgence, self-prejudices, self-illusions, etc. It is especially worth noting that a dual personality cannot have true self-knowledge without awareness of how these opposing qualities (energies) are controlled by our soul. After all, the self of a person is not the truth, but a temporary lifetime formation. Dual personality traits do not have a solid foundation, because they are brought up and built on the basis of self-esteem and hetero-esteem. Self-esteem of an individual is a derivative of the assessment of a person by another person, society; it is introduced into a growing personality by society, upbringing and culture. With self-esteem, we learn to compare ourselves, our part, with someone else or some of our ideal, manifested and unmanifested fragments from the arsenal of “I”. But any “I” is conditioned by society. Therefore, a person’s self-esteem can never be adequate, since the mind and ego deal with self-esteem. The social personality is endless in the manifestation of its dual qualities. “Judge not, lest ye be judged,” warns the biblical commandment, thereby emphasizing the unpromising nature of any assessment and self-esteem, and therefore of all models of learning and self-development built on this basis.

What does the self represent, what is meant by it? The Self is everything that the empirical personality has accumulated and appropriated in its life activity. These are her ideas, experience, conclusions, motives, needs, claims, intentions, emotions, character, memory, etc. The self, in its sugi, is conditioned, closed in on itself. The brighter the self manifests itself, the more difficult it is for a person to realize his essence, the soul to which the truth belongs. Why then such self-development, which leads away from the truth? Self-development, self-creation, self-discovery in a spiritual (integral) understanding is a departure from selfhood, from the desire to be someone or something; it is not a desire for some magnitude, but the disclosure of one’s transpersonal (mental-spiritual) qualities.

Thus, the analysis of psychological, pedagogical and methodological literature allowed us to consider in more detail the content of the previously identified four principles of the humanistic approach to education. IN summary their essence can be reduced to the following generalizations:

Orients scientists not to issue normative instructions, but to work with the consciousness of the student, to consciously assimilate universal human values;

In the center educational process there is a student-personality as a unique being, as a subject of history, culture, own life and education. The development of essence and personality is considered regardless of the political and ideological model of society;

The individual personality of the student receives freedom in building his inner (subjective) world, which is absolutely necessary for the development of creative abilities and self-realization;

Changes motivation, increasing the share of internal motivations coming from the student’s soul, instead of external forces of society and culture;

The role of the teacher is the ability to follow the development of the student, the will of his soul, while creating the most favorable conditions for the realization of his creative potential;

The “supportive” education model is aimed at maintaining and revealing the student’s mission and related activity goals;

Establishing non-judgmental acceptance of each other, not according to social role, but according to human essence;

The desire to develop the ability and desire to hear and see another person, the ability to build and implement attitudes not towards alienation and confrontation, but towards understanding, support and friendliness;

The university should bring into the soul of every student (and employee) a feeling of security, a feeling of gratitude to everyone with whom they spent years of apprenticeship and joint work;

To see in each student a unique and inimitable personality who has the right to universal human equality;

Recognize the limitless possibilities of students and contribute to their development;

Develop trusting relationships with all people without exception from the very beginning and throughout communication with them;

Recognize and promote the development of internal motivation in the development of all types of activities;

The teacher should not become the bearer of the “ultimate truth”; it is better to be an initiator for creative search and solution of emerging problems;

Presence of dialogue between teacher and students. In dialogue, a person develops his own position, learns to think creatively, realizing that he is the main driving force of self-change and self-development;

The teacher becomes accessible to every student, communications of cooperation rather than confrontation develop.

With the introduction of the humanistic learning paradigm, the role of not just “active teaching methods and assimilation of material” increases, but the very methodology of conducting training sessions (lectures, seminars, practical classes) changes. The teacher needs to learn to answer questions and requests from students, constantly move away from “program” knowledge, and be able to orient the student in the direction of obtaining a satisfying

his answer in the available scientific literature. The student must learn to find not only personally significant knowledge, but also spiritual knowledge, build it into a system, subject it to analysis and synthesis, i.e. we are talking about the technology of self-learning and self-knowledge from the position of the transpersonal “I”.

In order for the educational process in an educational institution to take place in the context of a humanistic approach, for this the atmosphere itself must become highly spiritual, the school or university must stand on the path of constant self-development. An educational institution as a social entity needs to clearly understand the meaning of its existence and answer the question why, for what purpose it was created and how it will translate its goals and objectives into reality. Despite the fact that the goals and objectives of the university clearly indicate that the university forms a spiritual, moral personality, and it is this goal that is the basis for the formation of a specialist, there are still no guarantees for the implementation of this goal. We see this in the management mechanisms, and in the content of the subjects studied, and in the methods and technologies of educational activities, and in the nature of communication between the subjects of education. At the university, “nothing is focused on the independent intensive personal growth of students,” notes L. N. Kulikova, as well as on the personal growth of teachers. As before, the basis of the learning management process are motives associated with external motivation and, as a rule, material, social and economic nature. The student is more removed than ever before from live, direct, sensory communication with teachers. Working from bell to bell and nothing more - this is the work atmosphere of many university employees.

More than ever, a university needs not just a teacher - a carrier of information, an evaluator, a critic, a propagandist, but a person of high spiritual culture with professional knowledge and skills. That is why the educational process needs to be fundamentally updated.

The university begins a deep understanding of its purpose by creating a mission and concept of the university, which will be based on the idea of ​​intellectual and spiritual self-development of the personality of the future specialist. It is also necessary to reconsider the content of education, basing it on the idea of ​​humanitarization of education, the introduction and expansion of a course of disciplines that contribute to the personal growth of the student on the basis of spiritual self-discovery. It is necessary to create a single center in each university, led by people capable of researching the state of the educational process as a whole, capable of monitoring and implementing new management and teaching technologies, and capable of cooperation.

An important point in transforming a university should be the updating of educational methods and technologies, especially with regard to university lectures. Educational material presented in the form of a lecture-dialogue, lecture-discussion, lecture-conversation, lecture-comparison, lecture-reflection, when the answers are found by the student himself, develops the student’s thinking much more strongly than simply writing down and memorizing a huge amount of educational material.

material. A lesson conducted “from the listener” most fully satisfies the individual’s cognitive needs and brings his psyche into a harmonious state. Students' research work should be oriented in such a way as to help them develop highly humane and spiritual qualities of the individual as the basis of a future professional. For this, numerous means are acceptable - from clinical psychotherapy to correctional pedagogy, where training, upbringing and education are carried out through any contact of a more developed psyche (soul) with a weakened or still undeveloped psyche of the student. Communication in the student-teacher dyad can and should become a mutually enriching process, regardless of their activities. In this regard, the approach carried out by humanistic pedagogy and psychology is promising.

The consciousness of an individual, like that of all humanity, grows very slowly. Growing consciousness does not mean filling the mind new information, this is not the only one and not the best way its development. Moreover, this is the simplest and most easily accessible method, but very unproductive and slow. Human consciousness is also capable of very rapid transformation, while the mind consciously receives information not only from the external world, but also from the inner world of the soul. When a person is ready for this, it happens without any effort on the part of the individual himself.

In the modern education system, a large role is still given to the development and improvement of competencies, skills, abilities and knowledge, and the education of a specialist focused on the requirements of society. Much less attention is paid to the development of personal abilities and qualities, the disclosure of individuality (soul), the formation of a person’s character and true values. A social personality cannot be unselfish as long as it lives according to the principle of consumption and appropriation, but the true personality is not ego, but individuality. which, through our evolution, is preparing to manifest itself in us. What is needed is such education, such individual and collective work, which contribute to the manifestation of the potential forces of the soul in the external personality. The humanistic paradigm of education is oriented towards fulfilling this task.

Bibliography

1. Abdrafikova, A. R. Development of the humanistic paradigm and its manifestation in the system of higher pedagogical education in the IV quarter of the 20th century [Text]: Dis... k. ped. n. / A. R. Abdrafikova - Kazan. 2005. -184 p.

2. Amonashvili, Sh. A. Reflections on humane pedagogy. [Text] Sh. A. Amonashvili - M.: Shalva Amonashvili Publishing House. 2001. -464 p.

3. Berdyaev, N. A. Self-knowledge (experience of philosophical autobiography). Sh. A. Amonashvili [Text] N. A. Berdyaev - M.: Book, 1991. - 445 p.

4. Valeev, A. A. Development of the theory and practice of free education in foreign pedagogy (XX century). [Text] Abstract of dissertation. . . . Dr. ped. Sci. / A. A. Valeev - Kazan. - 2007. - 38 p.

5. Valeeva, R. A. Humanistic pedagogy of Janusz Korczak. [Text] / R. A. Valeeva, - Kazan: KSPI, 1994. - 114 p.

6. Valeeva, R. A. Theory and practice of humanistic education in European pedagogy (first half of the 20th century). [Text] / R. A. Valeeva - Kazan: KSPU, 1997.-172 p.

7. Dilthey, V. Descriptive psychology / Translation from German by E. D. Zaitseva, ed. G. G. Shpeta. - St. Petersburg: Aletheia, 1996. - 160 p.

8. Zimnyaya, I. A. Pedagogical psychology: [Text] textbook. allowance / I. A. Winter - Rostov-n-D.: Phoenix, 1997. - 480 p.

9. Zinchenko, V. P. Developing Man. Essays on Russian psychology [Text] / V. P. Zinchenko, E. B. Morgunov. [Text] - M.: TRIvola, 1994. - 304 p.

10. Kapterev, P. F. Selected pedagogical works. [Text] / G1. F. Kap-terev - M.: Pedagogy, 1982. - 704 p.

11. Kulikova, L. N. Problems of personal self-development. [Text] - Khabarovsk. Publishing house of KhSPU, 1997.-315 p.

12. New pedagogical thinking. [Text]/ Ed. A. V. Petrovsky. -M.: Pedagogy, 1989. - 280 p.

13. Ostrogorodsky, A. N. Selected pedagogical works. [Text] / A. N. Ostrogorodsky - M.: Pedagogy, 1985. - 352 p.

14. Pedagogy and psychology of higher education: [Text] Textbook. allowance. Responsible editor S. I. Smygin. Series "Textbooks, teaching aids". - R-on-D.: Phoenix, 2002. - 512 p.

15. Rozin, V. M. Psychology: Theory and practice: [Text] Tutorial for high school. / V. M. Rozin - M.: Publishing House "Forum", 1997. - 296 p.

Problems of the crisis modern education, the state of secondary and higher education and ways of reforming it have moved to the center of active public and scientific discussions in recent years. The leitmotif of these discussions is the serious concern of scientists and the pedagogical community, caused by the deintellectualization of society, the decline in the quality of education, a significant drop in the level of general cultural training of students, and the unprecedented spread among young people of the ideology of individual success and material consumption.
The specificity of the modern sociocultural situation is characterized by a tendency that connects a person’s purpose in the world with education. Education is considered as one of the system-forming factors modern civilization. The fate of each person and humanity as a whole largely depends on the attitude in society towards education and, above all, on the value orientation of education itself.

IN modern world there are two value orientations of education, one of which is based on the paradigm of instrumental-technological rationality, where a person is a means of achieving rational goals; the second is based on the paradigm of humanism, within the framework of which the individual and his interests are considered as the highest value. These orientations originate in Ancient Greece, developing and interpreting both the educational ideas of the Sophists, aimed at the need to educate a “capable” and “strong” person who seeks benefit in everything he has to deal with, and the educational ideas of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, the basis of which is the ideal of kalokagathia, self-knowledge and self-improvement of the individual.
From our point of view, in modern conditions education should be based on the principles of humanism, which should be considered as the value basis of education, and the measure of humanization of education should be regarded as a criterion for assessing the results of the pedagogical process. At the same time, it is necessary to keep in mind the humanizing function of education, in which education should be presented as a sociocultural value. Let's compare these two paradigms and look more specifically at the settings of the humanistic paradigm.
From the position of instrumental-technological rationality, the main task of education is the preparation of a highly qualified specialist, the achievement of high professional competence by a person. Professional competence provides for the compliance of an employee’s knowledge, abilities and skills with his professional and official duties and rights. The humanistic paradigm does not deny that one of the most important goals of education is the preparation of a highly qualified specialist, a professionally competent person. However, it presupposes a rejection of a one-dimensional assessment of the student as a future functionary of social production and considers him as a multifaceted personality capable of self-knowledge, self-affirmation, self-development, searching for a calling and the meaning of life, and self-realization.
From the perspective of the humanistic paradigm final goal education is that each person can become a full-fledged subject of activity, cognition, communication, i.e. a free independent being, responsible for everything that happens in this world, a unique integral personality striving for self-actualization, open to new experience, capable of conscious , responsible choice. This means that education should be focused not only on achieving professional, but also social competence of the individual.
The educational process should proceed from the fact that a graduate of a vocational educational institution, outside of his professional rights and responsibilities, has other social statuses and roles. Therefore, the goals of education, its means, methods and organizational forms must be humanistic, that is, meeting the interests and needs of the individual. Education is a benefit for a person not only in the sense that it allows one to acquire the necessary professional knowledge and skills, successfully adapt to the cultural environment and acquire a high social status. Its main task is to develop the personality itself, to acquire a “human image” by the individual. Therefore, the main criterion of humanism becomes the real opportunities and conditions provided by the education system for the development of each individual person as a unique and individually inimitable being.
The measure of the humanism of education is expressed in how harmoniously target settings educational activities of society are combined with a person’s internal predisposition to the development of personal qualities or, in other words, in accordance with the normative image of a person’s internal nature.
Educational practice clearly demonstrates the relativism and pluralism of the educational ideal. It is determined by many factors - estate, class, national interests, political, economic, cultural needs, historical
features. At the same time, human nature presupposes a system of stable, objective parameters inherent in each individual, on the basis of which the implementation of the educational ideal is possible. Ultimately, the humanism of education is determined by the extent to which the educational ideal is organic to the inner nature of a person, to what extent and under what social conditions it is able to act as an internal principle of free and unconstrained acquisition by a person of a compositionally integral structure of individual spiritual life.
In traditional societies, bringing educational practice into line with the tasks of maintaining social balance was successfully achieved by copying crystallized collective experience with each new generation. For a historically transforming society, this mechanism becomes ineffective. The origin of the Axial Age, which served as the starting point in the endless and dramatic odyssey of European man, was caused, according to K. Jaspers, by the awakening of the reflective ability of the spirit. With exhaustive consistency, the rational consciousness expressed by ancient culture that the incomprehensible and not subject to will tectonic processes that have awakened in the depths of the human world makes the previous stable order of things impossible, contains the idea of ​​​​the need for a radical change in man himself, which seems to be the only condition for his return to his ontological homeland. The historicity of social existence now forces a person each time to build a new relationship with the world, and at the same time find a position in which he remains a free, self-determined being, a subject of consciousness and practice, not dissolving in the natural and social cosmos. “Through the actual historical world,” writes K. Jaspers, “in which the individual grows up, and in this world through systematic education by parents and school, through freely used institutions, and, finally, throughout life through everything that he hears and learns , it includes that which, united in the activity of his being, becomes his education, his nature.”

This is how the Greek idea of ​​paideia is born - education intended to restore the broken unity between the individual and society, tradition and modernity, subjective value and objectively necessary, individual and universal. In paideia, this reunion for the first time begins to be thought of not as the absorption of one opposite by another, but as their union on the basis of a third, immeasurably higher principle.
Closely connected with the deep foundations of European culture and the anthropological type of personality formed by it, paideia is a humanistic paradigm that varies in various types and forms of education, but constantly preserved in them as a cultural universal. However, in order for paideia to appear as a projective idea of ​​“education in general,” it is necessary to reconstruct its semantic structure, which, as modern researchers show, acquired clear and complete outlines only in the era of high Greek classics.
In this regard, it is necessary to free thought from its earthly basis and systematically implement paideia in theory, in the idea of ​​education, which is both an image and a model (paradigm) of the proper unity of the individual and society, corresponding to the rational and moral nature of man?

Literally translated from Latin, the word “paradigm” means “example”. In modern pedagogy it is used as a conceptual model of education. There are a great variety of educational paradigms. I.A. Kolesnikov links their diversity with pedagogical civilizations; in her opinion, humanity has passed the stages of natural pedagogy and reproductive-pedagogical civilization and is entering a creative-pedagogical civilization.

Archaeological, ethnographic, anthropological and other evidence suggests that at the first stage, “pedagogical activity” was organically woven into the natural flow of life of an adult and a child. Each member of the community was involved in the transfer and acquisition of knowledge, abilities, skills, and relationship experience necessary to survive. In terms of time, natural pedagogy corresponds to primitive society. Nature and man acted as an information sign. In the process of transferring work experience, the formation of a human way of life was carried out. The child and his educators lived not in the past and future, but “here and now,” using the knowledge, skills, and abilities that were required at each specific moment, performing only those social functions, which the situation required. The regulation of behavior was regulated by instinct. There was no question about the content of training and education.

As soon as there was a conscious differentiation of learning by gender, labor specialization, physical development, function in the family, humanity continued its path within the framework of reproductive and pedagogical civilization. Her distinguishing feature- purposeful transfer of the experience of “fathers” to “children” by means of a specially organized pedagogical process. Human communities began to invent, reproduce, and improve the best ways for their conditions to transmit information from generation to generation. Instead of natural materials on which primitive people imprinted their vision of the world around them, instead of sounds, gestures, and smells, sign systems were proposed that encode life experience, facilitating its conservation and transmission.

To date, there has been an almost complete replacement of man’s natural abilities to understand the world with the help of himself with artificial devices, “inanimate” nature. As a result, since the end of the 20th century. a person is doomed to mediate the acquisition of knowledge. Between him and the world there is a kind of “didactic wall”, the degree of permeability of which in terms of “purity of information” varies greatly. There is a constant weakening, attenuation, and distortion of information signals that originally connect humans with nature. A conditional world has been created in which the measure of information that determined all the previous stages of the human individual’s apprenticeship has been violated. The information flow is constantly increasing. The content of experience acquired in educational institutions is becoming increasingly disconnected from the real needs and requirements of the human individual. Within the framework of reproductive and pedagogical civilization, we are talking about the development of certain conditional, conventional requirements for the content of education and criteria for education. Experts “agree” on what amount of knowledge, abilities, skills, attitudes, value judgments should be considered standard, what are the behavioral norms that characterize the expected effect of education, whether the quality of a person as a cosmo-bio-social phenomenon is preserved, no one in particular does not care, because at this stage of pedagogical civilization the emphasis is primarily on the social tasks of teaching and upbringing. Natural, and even more so cosmic beginning recede into the background. Due to the violation of the information limit acceptable for a person, the processes of his alienation from knowledge are increasing. Protective mechanisms are activated to protect against redundancy of the proposed educational content. This is a kind of payment of human knowledge for neglecting nature.

The internal resources of the reproductive and pedagogical civilization have been exhausted, and we are forced, according to I.A. Kolesnikova, to take a step forward into the next civilization - the creative and pedagogical one.

It can be assumed that due to the need to master the mechanisms of integral information and energy exchange in the “Man-Cosmos” system, a reflexive culture will rapidly increase. Non-violent ways of resolving conflicts at various levels in the “Man-Man” system must and will be mastered, environmentally friendly forms of interaction in the “Man-Nature” system must be found.

We believe that at the stage of creative pedagogical civilization the human community taken as a whole will act as the aggregate subject-object of education. In this way, each individual will return to natural pedagogical activity as co-creation between an adult and a child, a universal way of being, in the depths of which the comprehension and evaluation of innovative experience will be carried out. The pedagogy of events will give way to the pedagogy of Being. The era of the school of creativity in its broad, philosophical understanding will come..

The transition to the third pedagogical situation will require a radical change in professional pedagogical attitudes and stereotypes, and the discovery of other meanings in the activities of a practicing teacher. There will be a revision of all currently existing models of educational systems according to the criterion of “humanity”. Having preserved the opportunities opened by scientific and technological progress, man will inevitably have to regain natural channels of interaction with Nature and with other people. Only then, perhaps, will the measure of information that gives the living, comprehensive knowledge necessary for harmony with the World be regained. All this will lead to a radical revision of the content of education and the meaning of learning.

In these searches, a kind of guiding star will be what is today called the pedagogical paradigm, the formation of which occurred and continues to occur as human communities master various ways of interacting with the world. None of the existing educational paradigms can be called worse or better. Each of them corresponds to one or another perception of the world and pedagogical objects, an understanding of their essence, and the construction of the educational process.

Approaches to culture:

• value (axiological);
• activity-based: culture is interpreted as proven methods of activity to create material and spiritual values;
• personal: culture is embodied in a certain type of personality, its properties.

The corresponding educational paradigms are:

• traditionalist-conservative. The word “conservative” is used here in a positive sense (preservation, stabilization of culture through education);
• rationalistic, which corresponds to the active approach in culture and is used to adapt a person to culture. Here the focus is not on knowledge, but on skills and methods of action;
• phenomenological (humanistic), relating to man as the main phenomenon of culture, as a subject of education.

That is, firstly, the paradigms differ by purpose, which are placed before education; secondly, on understanding the functions of the school; on ways to achieve goals; by the nature of pedagogical interaction, especially regarding the student’s position in education. Each of these paradigms poses its own questions for education:

• about the functions of the school as a social institution;
• about the effectiveness of the education system;
• about the school's priorities;
• what are the socially significant goals of education;
• what knowledge, abilities, skills are valuable and for whom, or what education should be like in the modern world.

A comparative assessment of various educational paradigms was given by V.Ya. Pilipovsky. The choice of educational paradigm is determined by binary oppositions:

It is known that personality education is based on various values:

• transcendental (bringing the student closer to absolute value - Truth, God);
• sociocentric (freedom, equality, brotherhood, labor, peace, creativity, harmony, humanity, etc.);
• anthropocentric (self-realization, hedonism, benefit, sincerity, autonomy, individuality).

The choice of basic values ​​determines the choice of educational paradigm.

A paradigm in pedagogy can also be considered in a more specific sense, which helps to concretize fairly general concepts. I.B. Kotova and E.N. Shiyanov consider the following as paradigms of traditional pedagogy:

• formative education, according to which students purposefully acquire socially defined and ideologically oriented qualities;
• the student is an object of pedagogical influence, and the teacher is an executive subject with limited initiative within the framework of the directives of management bodies;
• functional interaction in the pedagogical process, when each of its participants is assigned certain role responsibilities, departure from which is considered as a violation of the normative foundations of behavior and activity;
• external conditioning of the pupil’s behavior and activity, which becomes the main indicator of his discipline, diligence and which leads to ignoring the inner world of the individual when implementing pedagogical influence;
• direct (imperative) style of managing a student’s activities, which is characterized by monologized influence, suppression of initiative, and creativity of students;
• standardization of the educational process, in which the content and technology of teaching are focused primarily on the capabilities of the average student.

Traditional pedagogical thinking uses a set of these and other paradigms as an unshakable basis for pedagogical activity. The concept of personally oriented education, especially popularized by the Rostov Pedagogical University, is based on a set of paradigms that are distinguished by their humanistic orientation, i.e. focus on pedagogical actions that do not harm the individual, as well as its variability and susceptibility to creative rethinking. In this regard, the scientific function of pedagogy acts as a prescription and regulator, which has a provable basis and determines the development of pedagogical practice from the standpoint of recognition of the value of the human personality.

2.2. Esoteric paradigm

This is the oldest educational paradigm on our planet. Literally translated from Greek, “esoteric” means secret, hidden, intended exclusively for initiates (in religion, mysticism, magic). Its essence lies in the attitude towards Truth as eternal and unchanging. The truth cannot be known, say supporters of this paradigm; it can be accessed in a state of insight. The highest meaning of pedagogical activity is the liberation and development of the student’s natural forces for communication with the Cosmos, for access to superknowledge, and the protective function of the Teacher, who carries out moral, physical, mental training and development of the student’s essential forces, is especially important.

Comparing the Western and Eastern methods of thinking, one of the representatives of esoteric knowledge, Rajneesh, said: “The Western method, called “logic,” explores the truth through thinking... The path that we call “experience” or “wisdom” reveals all things at one time , like a flash of lightning, causing the truth to appear as it is, in its totality, leaving no room for change."

A teacher living in the esoteric dimension is, in fact, no longer a teacher, in the sense of “a slave leading a child,” but a genuine Teacher. He proceeds from the fact that Truth is unchanging and eternal. Teaching is the path leading to Truth, which cannot be taught, one can only join it. From here pedagogical process- this is not a message, as in the scientific-technocratic paradigm, not communication, as in the humanitarian one, but an introduction to the Truth, as a result of which the understanding is born that “awareness is power.” Moreover, this happens, according to N.K. Roerich’s definition, through an “enlightenment blow.” In the esoteric paradigm, man himself becomes the main organ of information interaction with the Universe.

This logic of working with a student does not imply the dynamics of scientific ideas or abstract knowledge. The dynamics of experience, states, and experiences dominate here. Since the Truth already exists and is unchangeable, it does not need to be proven; one can only “break through” to it through revelation, in a state defined differently: enlightenment, “eureka”, access to the superconscious, insight. In the traditions of the esoteric paradigm, work is underway to change the “human quality”, to extract the natural essence from under the cover of the personality formed through social mechanisms.

The search cycle and preparation of a student is a painstaking, “piecemeal work” that requires many years of gradual restructuring of a person’s inner nature.

Full voluntary submission to the Mentor is provided. In esoteric preparation, a stage of novitiate is required, during which, in complete silence, the student must only try to understand, without asking questions, and unquestioningly follow all the instructions of the Teacher.

In the esoteric paradigm, the evaluative aspect “disappears” in the teacher’s usual understanding, since the object of evaluation—the personality—disappears. Dissolving in others, she becomes part of a single whole. The criteria of behavior move into the area of ​​what is commonly called universal human values ​​and what actually goes into the sphere of the superhuman, into the area of ​​cosmic ethics.

The esoteric paradigm was known to the ancient civilizations of Egypt, Babylon, India, and America. The school of Pythagoras was founded on it. Tibetan lamas, Orthodox saints, elders, bearers of spiritual traditions mastered esoteric techniques, most of them hidden from the uninitiated. Some of her techniques are partly known to us from auto-training exercises, neurolinguistic programming, breathing techniques, etc.

2.3. Traditionalist-conservative (knowledge) paradigm

This paradigm is based on 3 postulates.

First postulate: education should be based on basic knowledge and corresponding skills and methods of learning. To achieve this, trainees must master the fundamental teaching tools, i.e. reading, writing and math literacy.

Second postulate: the content of education should be truly important and necessary, and not secondary knowledge, i.e. In education, we must separate the wheat from the chaff. The education system should be academic in nature and focus on basic branches of science. The school's focus should be on that which has stood the test of time and is the foundation of education.

Third postulate: humanistic. Much attention should be paid to ethical values. We are talking about universal human values. On the wave of innovation, a movement even arose in the West

"Back to basics!" This is because in science faculties they are already forgetting the basics of natural science and studying a bunch of new sciences. R. Ebel challenged new pedagogical ideas in the book “What is school for?” He believes that the school:

• this is not a guardianship institution for diverting young people from the street, for introducing them to work;
• this is not an adaptation center;
• this is not a place for social experiment.

A school, according to R. Ebel, is a place for learning, for gaining knowledge, in order to preserve the intellectual potential of the nation.

Although the school cannot be responsible for much, in his opinion, the school must create a conducive environment for learning, i.e.:

• have competent teachers,
• have the appropriate material and technical base.

N. Pustman in the book “Teaching as a Saving Activity” in the 1980s. (he also previously wrote the book “Teaching as a Subversive Activity”) takes a traditionalist position, arguing that the school should not adapt to the information sphere: television has a destructive effect on the intellect, since - like school - it has its own program, its own system and methodology . The school must resist such an information environment. This is possible if the school gives children a good knowledge of history, language, arts, religion and the continuity of human aspirations. Guidelines such as increased emphasis on the fundamentals of education, natural sciences, and especially history, as the heritage of science, are advocated.

The traditionalist-conservative concept is recommended to schools by the US Congress and politicians. Back in 1983, the US President appointed a commission on education, which prepared the report “A Nation at Risk.” The President was concerned about the growing tide of greyness, that the US school had lost its image of high standards. The risk lies in the ongoing “leakage” of representatives of intellectual thought, which began to be redistributed throughout the world in the same way as drugs.

A high level of education is the basis of a democratic state that prides itself on pluralism. Therefore, in 1990, US President Bush delivered a report to Congress on national education, where he proclaimed his goals until the year 2000 (which are not global, but achievable, unlike the USSR and Russia):

• Schoolchildren should come to 1st grade knowing how to read;
• 90% of students must successfully complete secondary school in accordance with the knowledge standard;
• it is necessary to arrange exams in social disciplines at the end of grades 4, 8, 12, English language, mathematics, science, history and geography. Transfer exams are being introduced in these subjects and the content is being updated. American society must be confident that the school prepares citizens who are able to participate in the normal life of the country in all areas;
• by 2000, American schoolchildren were expected to rank 1st in the world in math and science proficiency;
• it is necessary to ensure universal literacy of the population, which is important for them to realize their rights;
• By 2000, all US schools were required to be drug-free and have an environment conducive to learning.

Essentially, this is the American standard of education and the conditions for its implementation. It was backed by the best financial backing in the world. The problem of the goals of education, then, is to transmit the most essential elements of culture and civilization. School programs should form a base of knowledge, skills and abilities that ensure functional literacy and socialization of the individual.

The traditionalist-conservative paradigm of education is based on the idea of ​​a “saving”, conservative (in a positive sense) role of the school, the purpose of which is to preserve and transmit to the younger generation the cultural heritage, ideals and values ​​that contribute to both individual development and the preservation of social order . Therefore, the content of school programs should be based on basic knowledge, skills and abilities that have stood the test of time, ensuring the functional literacy and socialization of the child. This is an academic direction that does not connect school with life.

In the USSR, the education system was based precisely on this paradigm, and its effectiveness is obvious: in the 50s. last century, in terms of level of intellectualization, Soviet youth was in 2nd-3rd place in the world (UN data).

2.4. Technocratic paradigm

This paradigm was formed in professional consciousness and behavior as a derivative of the observed facts and phenomena of the scientific and technological revolution and its consequences. The paradigm is based on the idea of ​​truth, proven by scientifically based knowledge and verified experience. For teachers of this type, the motto “Knowledge is power” has been relevant since ancient times, and only practice serves as a criterion for the truth of knowledge.

Under the conditions of the technocratic paradigm, any result of the educational process can be assessed in the system of “yes - no”, “knows - does not know”, “educated - not educated”, “owns - does not own”. Here there is always a certain standard, ideal, standard against which the level of training, education, and upbringing is checked. Understanding a person’s quality in a given plane is associated with assessing his readiness or unreadiness to perform a certain social function. The idea of ​​proper knowledge and behavior is formed at the state level.

The value of a child is determined according to the principle “more - less”, “better - worse”, “stronger - weaker”, which creates an atmosphere of competition in educational institutions. The choice of teacher, as a rule, is made in favor of the “strong”. In the logic of technocracy, there is a constant selection for further promotion of those who were “in shape” at the time of diagnosis, competition, testing.

Inequality is reproduced in the “adult-child”, “teacher-student” system. Since the bearer of standard knowledge and behavior is always an adult, the interaction of participants in the pedagogical process is built on the principle of an information message from a subject to an object in the genre of a monologue, no matter in what externally active forms this occurs.

The subject of such a monologue can be not only a person, but also a teaching machine. Knowledge arises only on the side of the subject. The methods may also be different - from purely reproductive to interactive, but the meaning of the actions remains common: to find an algorithm that will allow the most accurate “introduction” of normative content into the consciousness and behavior of the ward and ensure the most complete and accurate reproduction of it.

Despite all the efforts and tricks, information leakage, its reduction, distortion, which is akin to the effect of a “damaged phone,” are inevitable here. Knowledge acquired in this way is always impersonal, averaged, limited by the framework of what is already known, albeit scientifically substantiated. At the level of philosophical and pedagogical consciousness, the analyzed paradigm features “love of science and knowledge.” But love for a child turns out to be superfluous, because in accordance with professional ethics, respect and exactingness completely replace it.

Freedom for the student and his mentor is realized only within the boundaries of accepted guidelines, standards and regulations. Equality as such does not exist, since everyone is constantly compared to each other on the same parameters. Therefore, it is natural that that layer of social consciousness that submits to the rules of technocratic existence resists knowledge and modes of behavior that refute and question these rules.

The scientific-technocratic paradigm was initially built according to the logic of distrust in the equality of cognitive capabilities. Hence the emergence in world pedagogical culture various kinds tests, rating series, education standards, its dead-end forms. In this case, verification of “compliance” with the standard is carried out, as a rule, without taking into account whether conditions have been created for the successful development of the child, whether the proposed standard is organic, a standard for the nature of a particular person. The norms for regulating relationships within the framework of technocratic logic lie in the sphere of external law, largely removing from the teacher the burden of responsibility for the position in relation to the assessment of the student, and from the student - in relation to the quality of his knowledge.

However, not everything is so unambiguously negative in this paradigm. The fact is that, although it is built on distrust of the individual’s capabilities, we owe many productive pedagogical technologies and interesting forms of work to it. These include: stencil writing, the Bell Lancaster teaching system, algorithmization and programming, computer games, supporting notes and much more that helps to streamline complex pedagogical processes, evaluate them quantitatively, and establish feedback.

In Russia, the technocratic paradigm was officially consolidated by government school reform in 1958: the Constitution of the USSR (a course on the rights and responsibilities of citizens), psychology (the science of the human soul), and logic (the science of human thinking) were removed from the curriculum. Instead, technical and service labor and basic military training appeared on the schedule. High school was officially declared a “labor polytechnic”, although its main function is the formation of a person of culture. An echo of that reform is the existing curriculum modern school “labor practice”, which has turned everywhere into labor duty for cleaning school premises and the yard.

Despite all the shortcomings, the technocratic paradigm provides a high level of knowledge for students. It was during the years of her dominance that our country was the first in the world to begin to explore outer space.

2.5. Behaviorist (rationalistic, behavioral) paradigm

Unlike the previous ones, this paradigm is based not on knowledge or cultural, but on psychological orientation - behaviorism.

Behaviorism is psychological theory behavior, which considers it as a person’s reaction to the influence of the external environment:

STIMULUS RESPONSE

Behaviorists describe less the inner world, its state, and more - external stimuli.

The rationalistic model of the school is associated with this theory. The model considers school as a way to acquire knowledge in order to shape children’s behavior, in other words, school is an educational mechanism for adapting to the environment.

Proponents of this model like to define a school as a factory, for which the raw materials and the result of processing are students. They are a ready-made product for life.

The leading principle of education is the regulation of the external conditions of the process and the reaction of students to it, developing and acquiring a behavioral repertoire (i.e., a set of methods of behavior).

The goal of the school is to form in students an adaptive “behavioral repertoire” that corresponds to social norms, requirements and expectations of Western culture. Moreover, the term “behavior” refers to “all types of reactions characteristic of a person - his thoughts, feelings and actions” (R. Tyler).

This paradigm views school as a path to assimilate knowledge with the goal of shaping optimal student behavior. The main motto: “A school is a factory for which students are the raw materials.”

The technocratism of the paradigm under consideration determines the need to formulate and detail learning goals in such a way that it is clearly clear from them what skills and abilities the student should have. The educational program is completely translated into the language of specific behavioral terms, the language of “measurable units of behavior.” R. Major was the first to translate science into the language of behavior. In his opinion, this enriches both the student and the teacher. Even if the teacher does everything, the student will still have coordination and control. Meijer considers teaching, training, test control, individual training, and adjustment to be the main teaching methods.

American psychologist B. Skinner introduced the concept of “social engineering”. He revealed the meaning of behavior. Behavior is all types of reactions characteristic of a person, i.e. his

In accordance with this, the training structure is proposed. All training comes down to the formation of specific skills and reactions:

• How to make phone calls?
• How to talk to a sick mother?
• How to “get out” if you don’t know the answer to a question?

It's difficult, but interesting task. For example, B. Bloom recommends the following intellectual operations in chemistry: knowledge, understanding, analysis, application, synthesis (5 levels of operations in total).

Any section of chemistry must be mastered at one or more levels (operations). To do this, you need to have measurable units of behavior. What about the development and creativity of the student? The problem of template and “training” arises.

From here, however, was born concept of complete assimilation of knowledge. One of the conditions is an unlimited period of study.

Basic phases (structure) of training:

1. planning learning based on a standard in the form of a set of observed student actions;
2. diagnostic: preliminary diagnosis of the initial level of knowledge, skills and abilities of students is necessary;
3. prescription: provides for programming the desired learning outcomes, determining conditions and selecting formative influences;
4. organizational: students are explained what they should know, i.e. learning objectives, and practical training is provided;
5. assessment of learning outcomes and their comparison with the initially intended standard; again testing is carried out.

So, training, individualization, diagnostics and the absence of a strict time limit are the main conditions for the complete assimilation of knowledge.

This concept is related to B. Bloom's concept, the essence of which is a fairly optimistic approach to students. He believes that almost all children can not only do well, but also learn successfully. A student's optimal ability is determined under appropriate conditions and at his or her own pace of learning.

He identified the following categories of students:

• low-ability (~5%); they cannot absorb knowledge even after a long period of study;
• talented (~5%), study at a very high pace;
• regular students (~90%). Their abilities are determined by the amount of study time they spend.

All this formed the basis of B. Bloom’s concept that approximately 95% of students will master the entire content of training when the time frame is removed and the appropriate approach to learning.

Features of the concept complete assimilation of knowledge by students according to Bloom:

• fixation of educational results at a high level, mandatory for all students;
• differences in learning outcomes will be seen beyond this overall high performance;
• The teacher must be imbued with the idea that all his students are capable of fully mastering the necessary educational material, and his duty is to organize the educational process.

The technique is as follows:

1. An exact definition of the criterion for complete assimilation for the entire class, the entire course, on the basis of which the teacher will draw up a list of specific learning outcomes that need to be obtained. Tests are made on this basis.
2. Educational units are allocated, i.e. complete sections of educational material. Then the results of their assimilation are again revealed, and current tests are compiled (which do not affect the final grade). The purpose of these tests is correctional (for the teacher).
3. Training in each of the educational units in the direction of complete assimilation. Then - testing again. Assessment of the completeness of mastery of the material throughout the course.

It is important to explain to each student the meaning of assessment, as well as the learning objectives.

In the book “Taxonomy of Educational Goals,” B. Bloom offers the following categories of goals:

• knowledge,
• understanding,
• application,
• analysis,
• assessment.

Intensive development of the abilities of average and weak students is the main meaning of Bloom's concept.

In fact, there is no hard line between different theories, concepts, and paradigms.

What is "knowledge"?

That is, those who give knowledge do not know what knowledge is.

Knowledge- these are facts, concepts, rules, principles, patterns, laws, ideas, theories.

Here are the components distributed by degree generality of the material.

There is an opinion that in Australia, Belgium, the USA, and the Republic of Korea, the effectiveness of such a system justifies itself in grades 5-8. In mass experiments in Korea, 70% of students achieved such good results, as in the normal system - for 10% of students.

In the USSR, this concept was most actively used in Estonia. But the developmental learning paradigm came into conflict with the rationalistic concept. Therefore, the Estonians combined something into one whole, adding to the rationalistic concept opportunity for development activities. And they started talking about mandatory minimum knowledge, especially in the humanities. And the Estonians limited their training time. Academic achievement increased by 60%.

2.6. Humanistic (phenomenological) paradigm

Much earlier than the technocratic and behaviorist ones, the humanistic paradigm began to take shape. It focuses on the student's development, intellectual needs and interpersonal relationships. Its core is a humanistic approach to the student, assistance in his personal growth, although attention is also paid to his preparation for life, adaptation, etc.

So, development and self-development, self-realization, student creativity, life creativity, subjectivity - this is what is at the heart of this model of education, and not subject-object relations (as in other models). There are collaborative partnerships here.

Development- transition of students to a higher level of activity and independence in solving assigned problems.

According to the famous psychologist L.S. Vygotsky, development is determined by the amount of assistance that must be provided to the child in his education.

According to Vygotsky:

• zone of current development- the knowledge, skills and abilities that a person has mastered and can use independently;
• zone of proximal development- those knowledge, skills and abilities that a person can use only with the help of an adult (senior).

Development is distinguished:

• general (universal abilities, including physical);
• special (related to abilities, giftedness);
• cultural development (we turn again to culture).

The highest level of development is self-development.

The main way to structure knowledge is cultural approach to education. It is based on the integration of academic disciplines, the creation of a holistic image of an era, culture, an understanding of the relationship between culture and civilization, an understanding of each area of ​​knowledge in the formation of culture, etc.

We lack psychologists, sociologists, primary school teachers and other specialists. So we have not yet begun to humanize education.

At the international seminar “Human Rights” in Azov in November 1993, there was talk about teaching the course “Man and Society” at school. Professors from Italy and England said that it should be introduced in all schools and universities in order to implement the 3rd paradigm. This subject must be studied continuously:

• primary schools - conversations about human rights;
• teenagers - teaching "Civics";
• senior schoolchildren - “Human rights and the foundations of democracy.”

Western scientists believe that the school should be a model of a legal society, which is difficult to implement in an authoritarian post-Soviet school.

In the context of the implementation of the humanistic paradigm of education, the main thing is for each person to find the truth, i.e. ways of knowledge. The motto of this paradigm is inner meaning- “Knowledge is power!” The pedagogical process is built on the principle of dialogue or polylogue and is rich in improvisation. There is no normative, unambiguous truth here, therefore the result of communication and exchange of spiritual values ​​is defined in the sense of “yes, yes.”

One of its main principles is the value-semantic equality of a child and an adult, not in the sense of the sameness or equivalence of knowledge and experience, but in the right of everyone to experience the world without restrictions. Hence the famous position of J. A. Komensky “to teach everyone everything.” The starting point in the school for measuring the quality of teaching activity is a person and his movement in time and space relative to himself. In this context, the teacher is primarily interested in the dynamics of individual personal properties and manifestations; every student is interested. The experience of the existence of a teacher in the humanistic paradigm has long been well known. It is enough to turn to the activities of Socrates, teacher-thinkers of the Renaissance, to the ideas of J.-J. Rousseau, J. Dewey and many others.

The humanistic paradigm forms relationships of the “subject-subject” type. The teacher and students jointly develop the goals of the activity, its content, choose forms and evaluation criteria, being in a state cooperation, co-creation. Diagnostic changes in the state of the “object” of pedagogical influence do not serve as a means of selection, selection, or educational discrimination. Low academic performance is not the basis for judging the normative qualities of a person; they are only a starting point for assessing the prospects and possibilities of professional work. The space of evaluation criteria moves to the plane of interpersonal relationships. The ethical position of the teacher and student changes, who take moral responsibility for free choice one or another position in interaction.

The speed of learning in the humanistic paradigm is determined by the individual ability of subjects to penetrate into the essence of a cognitive or life problem. To do this you need to at least be able to see and hear another. The teacher gets the opportunity to constantly enrich himself by professionally interacting with the student.

In the humanistic paradigm, love for a person, for a child, is an attribute of professionalism, which is why many authors of books that have now become classics discuss the question “How to love and understand a child?” Love creates faith in creativity and the capabilities of everyone, and tolerance bestows pedagogical wisdom. Examples of this were left in history by I.G. Pestalozzi, J. Korczak, K.N. Ventzel, L.N. Tolstoy, S.T. Shatsky, V.A. Sukhomlinsky.

Representatives of the humanistic paradigm are not distinguished by unity of views. Within its framework, various education models coexist. They are united in a single direction by a value-based attitude towards the child and childhood as a unique period of a person’s life, recognition of the child’s development main task schools. Each educational system operating within the framework of the humanistic paradigm conducts a creative search and finds its own content, methods, means of teaching and education. The humanistic direction presupposes freedom and creativity of both students and teachers.

The humanistic paradigm entered the educational space of Russia after 1991 not by order of the ministry, but by the initiative of local teachers. It is very relevant for our country, as it exalts man - a phenomenon of culture, education and nature.

It is believed that this paradigm is temporary for us until adequate self-esteem is formed in society, until we internalize the main values ​​of Russian humanistic philosophy of the late 19th - early 20th centuries. and democratic society. In all likelihood, sooner or later we will return to a knowledge paradigm that ensures high intellectual potential of school graduates. But the truth is known: there is nothing more permanent than temporary! And, apparently, the humanistic paradigm will be in demand here for many more decades.

Bhagawan Shree Rajneesh. Pulsation of the Absolute. M., 1993. P.11.

User, since you have reached this line, you have found something interesting or useful for yourself here. I hope you viewed the site in the Firefox browser, which alone correctly reflects the formulas found on the pages. If you liked the content, please support the site financially. Please disable ad blockers and click on the couple of banners at the top of the page. It won’t cost you anything, you’ll only see what you’ve already looked for or are looking for, and you’ll help the site stay afloat.

In modern conditions, within the framework of the established humanistic paradigm of education, there are different definitions of education.

The concept of education given by L.M. is of interest. Luzina, in my opinion, it reflects the essential characteristics of the humanistic paradigm of education. She identifies 3 meanings of education:

Education is a concept by which we denote internal process self-development, self-realization, self-development of a person through the application of volitional efforts to oneself.

An indispensable condition for this process is, firstly, the presence of a special environment, including the culture of a given society. And secondly, the presence of freedom of choice, the acceptance of those cultural phenomena that correspond to the maximum extent with natural prerequisites, inclinations, abilities, i.e., a person’s purpose.

Education is a concept through which the process of multilateral human development under the influence of diverse social factors is designated. This is socialization, which includes both individualization and assimilation, i.e. identification of oneself as a social being.

Education is a concept that denotes a pedagogical process (educational process) specially organized by professional educators in educational institutions.

The educational process as a specially organized interaction of its subjects includes the following components: goal, content, methods, forms and results.

In various domestic and foreign concepts of education, goals are defined differently:

• - how education is harmonious developed personality, combining spiritual wealth, moral purity and physical perfection;
• - how to introduce a person to culture, the formation of his social orientation and the development of creative individuality;
• - how to educate a socially competent person;
• - as the education of an autonomous personality capable of positive change in oneself and life;
• - emancipation, free development of personality;
• - as the development of a person’s self-awareness, helping her in self-determination, self-realization, self-affirmation.

In the humanistic paradigm, education - the goal of the educational process is determined based on its essence. If its essence is to create conditions for self-development, self-education, self-realization, then its goal is to orient the student towards self-development, self-education, self-realization.

E.V. Bondarevskaya, defines the goal of education as follows: “to find, support, develop a person in a person and lay in him the mechanisms of self-development, self-realization, adaptation, self-regulation, self-defense, self-education necessary for the formation of an original personal image and dialogical and safe interaction with people, nature, culture, civilization."

Pedagogical patterns are an adequate reflection of the objective, that is, independent of the will of the subject, reality of the educational process, which has stable properties under any specific circumstances.

To determine a pattern means to identify the basis of an ideal plan for pedagogical activity; to neglect them means to doom the teacher’s activity to low productivity. Comprehension of patterns opens the way to the free achievement of a goal, frees a person from colossal efforts, protects him from trial and error, and promotes the development of professionalism.

The basic laws of upbringing in the modern understanding reveal its leading characteristic - a humanistic attitude towards the child, which presupposes recognition of him as the highest human value.

In this regard, following P.I. For the weird ones, we will highlight the following patterns.

1. The upbringing of a child as the formation of socio-psychological new formations in the structure of his personality is accomplished only through the activity of the child himself. The measure of his efforts must correspond to the extent of his capabilities. He can only do what he can at the moment of his development, but in the process active work physical and spiritual personal changes occur, they allow one to increase the level of his efforts. From this point of view, the educational process is a constant upward movement towards the elevation of the child.

A good teacher is a teacher who knows how to organize children’s activities leading to his spiritual elevation.

The teacher builds a system of activities taking into account current needs cultivating them, revealing their value meaning.

A good teacher knows how to see what is happening with a growing person and what is important for the child at the moment of development, knows how to provide support, necessary for the child at the moment.

3. The development of personality through the activity of the individual itself confronts the teacher and the child with the problem of the child’s unpreparedness for activity: he does not naturally have the skills or the appropriate skills for independent action.

Therefore, activities should be jointly and shared in nature. The essence of this is to maintain a proportional relationship between the efforts of the child and the efforts of the teacher in joint activities.

Joint and shared activity helps the child feel like a subject of activity, and this is extremely important for the free creative development of the individual.

Jointly divided activities are carried out both tactically (get out of it, citing employment, etc.), and strategically through the projection of expanding rights and responsibilities, through the transfer of powers, through involvement in the planning and creation of a school life program, etc.

A good teacher always feels the limits of his own participation in the activities of children, who can provide the child with some of the work that is beyond his strength.

4. Only in conditions of love and security does a child express his or her relationships freely and freely and is not afraid of emerging relationships. Parenting includes in its content a demonstration of love towards the child.

The manifestation of love is a condition for a feeling of security in this world, where a child is so weak and powerless, so inexperienced and ignorant.

The actual nature of love for a pupil presupposes a set of qualities of the teacher in which this feeling is realized.

Firstly, it is a concern for preserving, maintaining and restoring the strength and health of the pupil.

Secondly, this is an interest in the life and development of the student. Interest implies the ability to work for the well-being of the student.

Thirdly, this is responsibility. Being responsible means being ready to respond to the pupil's overt or hidden requests.

A loving person always feels responsible for the life, health, well-being, success or failure of his neighbors. In love for the student, the teacher feels responsible for the development of the child’s spiritual and moral needs.

Fourthly, this is the ability to respect. Respect is the ability to see and accept the student as he is, in his uniqueness, this is the desire of the teacher to develop the uniqueness of the child. Respect means accepting the student's self-worth. Respect is incompatible with turning the student into a means of realizing the teacher’s goals. “Love is the child of freedom and never of domination.”

5. Activity is active form relationship to the object, the subject of the activity develops a personal relationship to the object in the course of it. They are formed as positive under the condition that the subject experiences satisfaction with the process and its completion, the product of the activity.

It follows from this that the organized activity is accompanied or crowned with a situation of success that every child must experience.

A situation of success is a subjective experience of personal achievements in the context of individual development of a person and his individual life.

Orientation to success is formed in a situation of success; it presupposes the presence of a stable picture associated with repeated situations of success. Therefore, the teacher creates a situation of success for each child as individual satisfaction with participation in the activity, with one’s own actions, the result obtained, and the course of emotional experiences during the work.

Positive reinforcement is the most general condition for creating a situation of success (encouragement, compliment, surprise, gift, joy, etc.).

The teacher must be able to provide positive reinforcement, elevating the child’s spiritual strength.

6. Education should be “hidden in nature.” Targeted educational influences planned in the name of enrichment and elevation of the individual remain in the limited sphere of pedagogical professionalism.

The hidden position of the teacher is ensured joint activities, the teacher’s interest in the child’s inner world, providing him with personal freedom, joint understanding of life and its structure, as well as a respectful and democratic attitude towards him and a democratic style of communication. The child experiences interaction with the world, and this constitutes his happiness in life as a subject who finds his inner world and his soul.

To open means to put the child in the position of a subject.

The support for maintaining a hidden position will be a pronounced interest in the child, his problems, and support for the child in various life situations.

7. Personality exists and manifests itself as a holistic phenomenon, in each separate act behavior, it simultaneously holistically builds a system of personal relationships to the world. The integrity of the individual as a socio-psychological phenomenon prescribes integrity to the educational process. It provides a relational polyphony of action and behavior, but without a teacher it is not realized.

A well-organized life of schoolchildren: regime, style, content, forms - affirms the system of the highest universal, moral values, thereby promoting the integrity of the individual.

From pedagogical laws follow the basic pedagogical principles, as fundamental or initial provisions that determine the requirements (rules) of education. They logically follow from the synthesis of certain theoretical positions and methods of their implementation.

We can say that one hundred principles of education are rules for everyone who interacts with people in one capacity or another.

The principles (rules) used by a particular teacher are directly related to the level of his general and professional culture and determine professional behavior in general. However, the purpose of the principles of education is to unite the efforts of all those who in one way or another come into contact with education, but first of all, to unite all educators.

Traditionally in Soviet pedagogy they were called the following principles education: communist ideology, purposefulness, connection between education and life, education in a team and through a team, unity of requirements and respect for the student’s personality: consistency and systematicity, unity of educational influences, taking into account the age and individual characteristics of students.

In the context of modern approaches to education, the goal of which is the person himself, the development of his essential powers, a revision of the principles is naturally required.

Humanistic pedagogy around the world has formulated the principles of education based on the main thesis about the self-worth of man. For example, the French thinker and teacher S. Frenet puts forward the following principles (requirements) to educators.

Let's briefly list them:

• 1. Accept children as equals.
• 2. Take into account that a child’s behavior at school depends on his mental makeup and state of health.
• 3. Any authoritarian order is always a mistake.
• 4. Any categorical requirement must be explained and motives revealed.
• 5. Abandon authoritarian demands and move to the discipline of business cooperation.
• 6. Provide children with free choice of work, time and pace of its completion.
• 7. Any work must be motivated, a labor of love.
• 8. Build the life of the school on the principles of cooperation and elevating the personality of students.
• 9. Optimistic faith in life.
• 10. Protection of the identity of each child.
• 11. Recognition of the giftedness and self-worth of each person as an individual.
• 12. Collectivism does not mean conformism.

This list of principles could be continued, since many such unique pedagogical commandments as the foundations of a teacher’s professional activity can be identified.

But, remembering that the principles stem from the purpose of education and from the nature of education, we can identify the main ones that reveal the essence of the educational process.

This is an orientation towards value relationships. According to N.E. Shchurkova, this principle means the constancy of the teacher’s professional attention to the students’ attitudes towards socio-cultural values ​​unfolding in actions, emotional reactions, words, intonations: man, nature, society, work, knowledge, goodness, truth, beauty as the value foundations of a life worthy of a person.

The principle is realized due to the fact that the activity organized by the teacher takes on a philosophical character: behind the fact a phenomenon is discovered, behind the phenomenon - the pattern of life, behind the pattern - the foundations of human life.

This makes it possible to transform every moment of modern activity into the experience of value relations.

The second principle is the principle of subjectivity, according to which the teacher maximizes the development of the child’s ability to realize his “I” in connections with other people and the world in its diversity, to comprehend military actions, to foresee their consequences, both for others and for one’s own destiny, and to evaluate oneself as a bearer of knowledge, relationships, as well as your choice.

The general way to initiate subjectivity is to give education a dialogical character. “To be means to communicate dialogically. When the dialogue ends, everything ends.”

Let us formulate the third principle of upbringing as follows: accepting the child as a given. It means recognition of the child’s right to exist as he is, with his own characterological characteristics, respect for the child’s life history, taking into account his psychological state, characteristics of physical and mental health.

To accept a child as a given is to recognize the value of his personality at the current moment of development, to recognize in him the dignity of a person, to maintain respect for him in any situation.

The unity of these principles reveals the essence and goals of the educational process aimed at creating, maintaining and transforming the conditions for self-formation, self-education, and self-realization of the child.

humanistic paradigm pedagogical

Submitting your good work to the knowledge base is easy. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution

Higher professional education

Tomsk State Pedagogical University

Abstract

Discipline: History of Psychology

Topic: Humanistic paradigm in psychology

Completed:

__1__year student

Group: 12416-P

Specialty student:

Psychology and Pedagogy

Shestakova Ekaterina Anatolyevna

Tomsk 2004

Introduction………………………..…………………………..….……………………….3

1. The emergence of the humanistic paradigm within the framework of humanistic psychology………………………..……………………….………………………..…..5

2. G. Allport’s concept of personality…………………………………………………….8

3. A. Maslow’s theory of personality…………………..…….…………………10

4. K. Rogers’ theory of personality…………….…………..………………….14

Conclusion……………………………..……………..….……………………16

References……………………….……………………………………...17

Introduction

Humanistic psychology emerged in the United States in the late 1950s. It was formed as a union of scientists who share some common views on man and on the methodology of psychological research, and the basis for this union was largely a protest against two approaches - psychoanalysis and behaviorism. In these approaches, it is precisely the highest essential manifestations specific to a person that remain outside of consideration. It was they who were placed at the center of their interests by the emerging humanistic psychology.

The founders of humanistic psychology set the task of building a new methodology for human cognition, fundamentally different from the natural sciences. But the discord within the movement itself gave rise to difficulties on the path to consolidation, therefore, according to D.A. Leontiev, “opposition to behaviorism and psychoanalysis remains to this day the only cementing basis of the movement.” Humanistic psychologists themselves point to differences in the views of the founders of humanistic psychology. So in the late 1980s. J. Rowan in his article “Two Humanistic Psychologies or One?” drew attention to the fact that within humanistic psychology at least two directions can be distinguished, differing in their view of the image of a person (quoted by Leontiev D.A.) This is existential psychology and conventionally designated “personally centered”. But today we can already say that existential psychology has separated from humanistic psychology and has become independent from it.

Under the humanistic paradigm I will have the direction that D.A. Leontyev conventionally called it “personally centered.” And although we can say that these paradigms have common grounds, in many ways they are completely different. “Humanistic psychology is a direction in Western psychology that recognizes as its main subject the personality as a unique integral system, which is not something given in advance, but an open possibility of self-actualization, inherent only in man” (dictionary).

Purpose of the work: to study the theoretical principles of humanistic psychology.

Objectives: 1. Study the historical aspects of the emergence of the humanistic paradigm;

2. Reveal the views on the theory of personality of the following representatives of humanistic psychology: A. Maslow, G. Allport, K. Rogers.

When performing the work, I relied on the works of the following authors: Zeigarnik B.V., Leontyev D.A., Maslow A., Zhdan A.N., etc.

1. The emergence of humanisticparadigms within humanistic psychology.

The humanistic line in psychology as a cultural phenomenon arose in response to the “militarization” of American society that invaded and replaced culture. “Two world wars that occurred within a relatively short time, posed a number of questions to human science for which it was not prepared. The collapse of the optimistic view of human progress, the unprecedented scale of cruelty, aggression and destructiveness forced us to think again about the nature of man, about the impulses that drive him and about the relationship between the individual and social structures.”

The first works of humanistic psychologists occurred in the 50s of the twentieth century, but the heyday of this direction occurred in the late 60s and early 70s. As noted by D.A. Leontiev, “The American Association of Humanistic Psychology in the first years of its existence put forward the following, rather vague definition: “Humanistic psychology can be defined as the third main branch psychological research(the other two branches are psychoanalytic and behaviorist), which deals primarily with those human abilities and potentialities that have not found their place either in positivist or behaviorist theory or in classical psychoanalytic theory, for example, creativity, love, self, development, organism , satisfaction of basic needs, self-actualization, highest values, being, becoming, spontaneity, play, humor, affection, naturalness, warmth, ego transcendence, objectivity, autonomy, responsibility, psychological health and related concepts. This approach can also be represented by the works of K. Goldstein, E. Fromm, K. Horney, K. Rogers, A. Maslow, G. Allport, A. Engyal, S. Bueller, K. Moustakas, etc., as well as some aspects of the works of K. Jung, A. Adler, ego-psychologists of the psychoanalytic direction, existential and phenomenological psychologists (quoted from Quimann, 1985, pp. 25-26) This slightly drawn-out quote, however, outlines the problematic field in which humanistic psychology, as well as those theorists and practitioners who participated in the development of these ideas. Humanistic psychology is a direction in Western psychology that recognizes as its main subject the personality as a unique integral system, which is not something given in advance, but an open possibility of self-actualization inherent only in man." (dictionary) Key points: Rogers K., Maslow A. say that a person is inherent in a certain internal strength - a tendency towards self-actualization, directing his development towards the most complete disclosure, unfolding of the possibilities, strengths and abilities inherent in him. In this approach, a person is assigned certain given potentials, a certain given nature, positive in its essence. , which is updated in the process of development. Development is the unfolding of what is already inherent in a person.

K. Rogers attributed the determination of the direction of development to the biological nature of man, which contains a certain set of capabilities. What a person acquires during socialization cannot improve, but can only distort the true nature. Maslow A. talks about the importance of cultural influences, but the tendency towards self-actualization, in his opinion, is also inherent.

Humanistic psychologists proceed from the fact that a person interacts with the world already being endowed with a certain set of qualities. Accordingly, the unit of analysis is an individual personality with its inherent potentials. And if previously it was believed that social influences hinder rather than promote actualization, recently the opinion has been expressed that other people are an indispensable condition for the development of an individual, and that culture can have not only a restrictive, but also a positive influence on self-actualization. However external factors are considered as conditions and prerequisites for development.

When looking at human nature, humanistic psychologists share the following opinion: human nature is inherent in primordial good, and the source of evil lies outside human nature, somewhere in external reality.

The center of this trend was the USA, and the leading figures were K. Rogers, R. May, A. Maslow, G. Allport. American psychology, Allport noted, has few original theories of its own. But it has done a great service in helping to disseminate and refine the scientific contributions made by Pavlov, Wiene, Freud, Rorschach, and others. Now, Allport wrote, we can do a similar service with Heidegger, Jaspers, and Binswanger. The influence of existentialist philosophy on a new direction in psychology does not mean that the latter was only its psychological duplicate. As a specific scientific discipline, psychology solves its own theoretical and practical problems, in the context of which the circumstances of the emergence of a new psychological school should be considered.

Each new direction in science defines its program through opposition to the attitudes of already established schools. IN in this case Humanistic psychology saw the inferiority of other psychological trends in the fact that they avoided confrontation with reality as a person experiences it, and ignored such constitutive features of personality as its integrity, unity, and uniqueness. As a result, the picture of personality appears fragmented and is constructed either as a “system of reactions” (Skinner), or as a set of “dimensions” (Guilford), agents such as the ego, id and superego (Freud), and role stereotypes. In addition, the personality is deprived of its most important characteristic - free will - and appears only as something determined from the outside: by stimuli, “field” forces, unconscious aspirations, role prescriptions.

Her own aspirations come down to attempts to defuse (reduce) internal tension, to achieve balance with the environment; her consciousness and self-awareness are either completely ignored or seen as a disguise for the “rumblings of the unconscious.” Humanistic psychology made a call to understand human existence in all its immediacy at a level that lies below the gulf between subject and object that was created by the philosophy and science of modern times. As a result, humanistic psychologists argue, on one side of this abyss there was a subject reduced to “rationality”, to the ability to operate with abstract concepts, on the other - an object given in these concepts. Man disappeared in all the fullness of his existence, and the world as it was given in man’s experiences also disappeared. Psychological “technology” also correlates with the views of the “behavioral” sciences on personality as an object that does not differ either in nature or in cognition from other objects in the world of things, animals, mechanisms: various kinds of manipulations related to learning and eliminating anomalies in behavior ( psychotherapy).

2. Gordon Allport's concept of personality

The main provisions of the new direction - the humanistic school of personality psychology, which is currently one of the most significant psychological schools, were formulated by Gordon Allport.

G. Allport (1897-1967) considered the concept of personality he created as an alternative to the mechanism of the behavioral approach and the biological, instinctive approach of psychoanalysts. Allport also objected to the transfer of facts associated with sick people, neurotics, to the psyche of a healthy person. Although he began his career as a psychotherapist, he very quickly moved away from medical practice, focusing on experimental research healthy people. Allport considered it necessary not just to collect and describe observed facts, as was practiced in behaviorism, but to systematize and explain them. “Collecting “bare facts” makes psychology a headless horseman,” he wrote, and he saw his task not only in developing methods for studying personality, but in creating new explanatory principles personal development. One of the main postulates of Allport's theory was that the individual is open and self-developing. Man is, first of all, a social being and therefore cannot develop without contacts with the people around him, with society. Hence Allport’s rejection of the position of psychoanalysis about the antagonistic, hostile relationship between the individual and society. At the same time, Allport argued that communication between the individual and society is not a desire to balance with the environment, but mutual communication and interaction. Thus, he sharply objected to the postulate generally accepted at that time that development is adaptation, the adaptation of man to the world around him, proving that man is characterized by the need to explode the balance and reach more and more new heights. Allport was one of the first to talk about the uniqueness of each person. Each person is unique and individual, as he is the bearer of a unique combination of qualities and needs, which Allport called trite - trait. He divided these needs, or personality traits, into basic and instrumental. Basic traits stimulate behavior and are innate, genotypic, while instrumental traits shape behavior and are informed in the process of life, i.e. are phenotypic formations. The set of these traits constitutes the core of personality.

Important for Allport is also the position about the autonomy of these traits, which develops over time. The child does not yet have this autonomy, since his features are still unstable and not fully formed. Only in an adult who is aware of himself, his qualities and his individuality, traits become truly autonomous and do not depend on either biological needs or social pressure. This autonomy of a person’s traits, being the most important characteristic of his personality, gives him the opportunity, while remaining open to society, to preserve his individuality. Thus, Allport solves the problem of identification-alienation, which is one of the most important for all humanistic psychology. Allport developed not only his theoretical concept of personality, but also his methods for systematic research of the human psyche. For this purpose, he creates multifactorial questionnaires. The most famous is the University of Minnesota Questionnaire (MMPI), which is currently used (with a number of modifications) to analyze compatibility, professional suitability, etc. Over time, Allport came to the conclusion that the interview was being more information and is a more reliable method than a questionnaire, because it allows you to change questions during the conversation and observe the state and reaction of the subject. The clarity of the criteria, the presence of objective keys for decryption, and consistency distinguish all developed
Allport's methods of personality research from the subjective projective methods of the psychoanalytic school.

3. Abraham Maslow's Personality Theory

Abraham Maslow (1908-1970) graduated from the University of Wisconsin with a PhD in psychology in 1934. His own theory, which the scientist developed by the 50s of the 20th century, appeared on the basis of a detailed acquaintance with the main psychological concepts, existing at that time (as well as the very idea of ​​​​the need to form a third way, a third psychological direction, alternative to psychoanalysis and behaviorism). In 1951, Maslow was invited to Branden University, where he held the post of chairman of the psychological department almost until his death. During the last years of his life, he also served as president of the American Psychological Association. Speaking about the need to form a new approach to understanding the psyche, Maslow emphasized that he does not reject old approaches and old schools, is not an anti-behaviorist or anti-psychoanalyst, but is an anti-doctrinaire, i.e. opposes the absolutization of their experience.

One of the biggest shortcomings of psychoanalysis, from its point of view, is not so much the desire to downplay the role of consciousness, but the tendency to consider mental development from the point of view of the body’s adaptation to the environment, the desire for balance with the environment. Like Allport, he believed that such equilibrium is death for the individual. Balance and rootedness in the environment negatively affect the desire for self-actualization, which makes a person an individual. Maslow was no less active in opposing the reduction of all mental life to behavior, which was characteristic of behaviorism. The most valuable thing in the psyche - its self, its desire for self-development - cannot be described and understood from the standpoint of behavioral psychology, and therefore the psychology of behavior should not be excluded, but supplemented by the psychology of consciousness, a psychology that would study the “I-concept” of the individual. Maslow almost did not conduct global, large-scale experiments that are characteristic of American psychology, especially behaviorism. His small, pilot studies did not so much groping for new paths as confirming what he had arrived at in his theoretical reasoning. This is exactly how he approached the study of “self-actualization” - one of the central concepts of his concept of humanistic psychology. Unlike psychoanalysts, who were primarily interested in deviant behavior, Maslow believed that the study of human nature must be "by studying its best representatives, and not by cataloging the difficulties and errors of average or neurotic individuals." Only in this way can we understand the limits of human capabilities, the true nature of man, which is not fully and clearly represented in other, less gifted people. The group he chose for the study consisted of eighteen people, nine of them were his contemporaries, and nine were historical figures (A. Lincoln, A. Einstein, W. James, B. Spinosaider).

These studies led him to the idea that there is a certain hierarchy of human needs, which looks like this: physiological needs food, water, sleep, etc.; need for security - stability, order; need for love and belonging - family, friendship; need for respect - self-esteem, recognition; the need for self-actualization - development of abilities. One of the weaknesses of Maslow's theory was that he argued that these needs are in a once and for all given rigid hierarchy and higher needs (for self-esteem or self-actualization) arise only after more elementary ones are satisfied. Not only critics, but also followers of Maslow showed that very often the need for self-actualization or self-esteem was dominant and determined a person’s behavior, despite the fact that his physiological needs were not satisfied, and sometimes prevented the satisfaction of these needs. Subsequently, Maslow himself abandoned such a rigid hierarchy, combining all needs into two classes: the needs of need (deficit) and the needs of development (self-actualization). At the same time, most representatives of humanistic psychology accepted the term "self-actualization" introduced by Maslow, as well as his description of the "self-actualizing personality."

Self-actualization is associated with the ability to understand oneself, one’s inner nature and learn to “tune in” in accordance with this nature and build one’s behavior based on it. This is not a one-time act, but a process that has no end, it is a way of “living, working and relating to the world, and not a single achievement.” Maslow identified the most significant moments in this process that change a person’s attitude towards himself and the world and stimulate personal growth. This can be an instantaneous experience - a “peak experience” or a long-term one - a “plateau experience”.

Describing a self-actualizing personality, Maslow said that such a person is characterized by acceptance of himself and the world, including other people. These are, as a rule, people who adequately and effectively perceive the situation, centered on the task, and not on themselves. At the same time, they are also characterized by a desire for solitude, autonomy and independence from the environment and culture. Thus, Maslow’s theory includes the concepts of identification and alienation, although these mechanisms have not been fully disclosed. However, the general direction of his reasoning and experimental research gives us the opportunity to understand his approach to the mental development of the individual, his understanding of the connections between the individual and society.

The scientist believed that it was conscious aspirations and motives, and not unconscious instincts, that constitute the essence of human personality. However, the desire for self-actualization, for the realization of one’s abilities, encounters obstacles, lack of understanding of others and one’s own weaknesses. Many people retreat in the face of difficulties, which does not leave its mark on the individual and stops his growth. Neurotics are people with an undeveloped or unconscious need for self-actualization. Society, by its very nature, cannot help but hinder a person’s desire for self-actualization. After all, any society strives to make a person its stereotyped representative, alienates the personality from its essence, makes it conformal. At the same time, alienation, while preserving the “self”, the individuality of the individual, puts it in opposition to the environment and also deprives it of the opportunity to self-actualize. Therefore, a person needs to maintain a balance between these two mechanisms, which, like Scylla and Charybdis, guard him and seek to destroy him. Optimal, Maslow believed, are identification on the external plane, in communication with the outside world, and alienation on the internal plane, in terms of the development of self-awareness. It is this approach that gives a person the opportunity to effectively communicate with others and at the same time remain himself. This position of Maslow made him popular among intellectuals, as it largely reflected the views of this social group on the relationship between the individual and society. Assessing Maslow's theory, it should be noted that he was perhaps the first psychologist who paid attention not only to deviations, difficulties and negative aspects personality. He was one of the first to explore the achievements of personal experience, revealing ways for self-development and self-improvement of any person.

4. Theorypersonality of K. Rogers

In his personality theory, Rogers developed a certain system of concepts in which people can create and change their ideas about themselves and their loved ones. Therapy is also deployed in the same system, helping a person change himself and his relationships with others. As with other representatives of humanistic psychology, the idea of ​​the value and uniqueness of the human person is central to Rogers. He believes that the experience that a person has in the process of life, which he called the “phenomenal field,” is individual and unique. This world created by man may or may not coincide with reality, since not all objects included in the environment are conscious of the subject. Rogers called the degree of identity of this field with reality congruence. A high degree of congruence means that what a person communicates to others, what is happening around him, and what he is aware of is more or less the same. Violation of congruence leads to an increase in tension, anxiety and, ultimately, to neuroticism of the individual. Neuroticism also leads to a departure from one’s individuality, a rejection of self-actualization, which Rogers, like Maslow, considered one of critical needs personality. Developing the foundations of his therapy, the scientist combines the idea of ​​congruence with self-actualization. Speaking about the structure of the self, Rogers attached particular importance to self-esteem, which expresses the essence of a person, his self. Rogers insisted that self-esteem should not only be adequate, but also flexible, changing depending on the situation. This constant change, selectivity in relation to the environment and a creative approach to it when selecting facts for awareness, which Rogers wrote about, proves the connection of his theory not only with the views of Maslow, but also with the concept of the “creative self” of Adler, which influenced many personality theories second half of the 20th century. At the same time, Rogers not only talked about the influence of experience on self-esteem, but also emphasized the need for openness to experience. Unlike most other concepts of personality, which insist on the value of the future (Adler) or the influence of the past (Jung, Freud), Rogers emphasized the importance of the present. People must learn to live in the present, to be aware of and appreciate every moment of their lives.

Only then will life reveal itself in its true meaning and only then can we speak of full realization, or, as Rogers called it, the full functioning of the personality. Rogers, accordingly, had his own special approach to psychocorrection. He proceeded from the fact that the psychotherapist should not impose his opinion on the patient, but lead him to the right decision, which the latter makes independently. During the therapy process, the patient learns to trust himself, his intuition, his feelings and impulses more. As he begins to understand himself better, he understands others better. As a result, that “insight” occurs, which helps to rebuild one’s self-assessment, “restructure the gestalt,” as Rogers says. This increases congruence and makes it possible to accept yourself and others, reduces anxiety and tension. Therapy occurs as a meeting between a therapist and a client or, in group therapy, as a meeting between a therapist and several clients. “Encounter groups” or meeting groups created by Rogers are one of the most widespread technologies of psychocorrection and training today.

Conclusion

Thus, in the humanistic theory of personality there are two main directions. The first, “clinical” (focused primarily on the clinic), is presented in the views of the American psychologist C. Rogers. The founder of the second, “motivational” direction is the American researcher A. Maslow. Despite some differences between these two areas, they have much in common.

Representatives of humanistic psychology consider innate tendencies towards self-actualization to be the main source of personality development. Personal development is the development of these innate tendencies.

According to humanists, there is no decisive age period; personality is formed and develops throughout life. However, the early periods of life (childhood and adolescence) play a special role in personality development. Rational processes dominate in the personality, where the unconscious arises only temporarily, when for one reason or another the process of self-actualization is blocked. Humanists believe that the individual has complete free will. A person is aware of himself, aware of his actions, makes plans, searches for the meaning of life. Man is the creator of his own personality, the creator of his own happiness. The inner world of a person is fully accessible only to himself. The basis of human actions is subjective perception and subjective experiences. Only subjective experience is the key to understanding the behavior of a particular person.

Thus, within the framework of the humanistic approach, personality is the inner world of the human “I” as a result of self-actualization, and the structure of personality is the individual relationship between the “real Self” and the “ideal Self,” as well as the individual level of development of needs for self-actualization.

References

1. Godefroy J. What is psychology. In 2 volumes. Volume 1. M., Publishing house "Mir". 1992

2. Godefroy J. What is psychology. In 2 volumes. Volume 2. M., Publishing house "Mir". 1992

3. Zhdan A.N. History of psychology from antiquity to the present day. Publishing house "Mir". 1992

4. Zeigarnik B.V. Theories of personality in modern psychology // In collection. B.V. Zeigarnik. Personality psychology: norm and pathology. Moscow-Voronezh, 1998

5. Leontiev D.A. Humanistic psychology as a sociocultural phenomenon // In collection. Psychology with a human face. Humanistic perspective in post-Soviet psychology. M., Smysl, 1997.

6. Maslow A. Motivation and personality. - St. Petersburg: Eurasia, 1999.

7. Psychology. Dictionary. Ed. Second and correct. and additional Ed. A.V. Petrovsky. M., Publishing house of political literature. 1990

8. Psychology: Textbook for humanitarian universities / Under general ed.. V.N. Druzhinina. - St. Petersburg: Peter, 2003.

Similar documents

The emergence and stages of development of the humanistic paradigm within the framework of humanistic psychology, its principles. The content of G. Allport’s theory of personality traits, as well as A. Maslow’s self-actualization. The concept and meaning of personality congruence in the theory of K. Rogers.

test, added 10/03/2014


Various theories of personality. The role of humanistic theories of A. Maslow, K. Rogers, W. Frankl in the development of personality psychology. Basic principles of humanistic psychology. Criticism of Russian personality methodology.

report, added 03/21/2007


Studying approaches to understanding personality development in the works of key researchers in this field. Approach to personality development: within the framework of the psychoanalytic school of Z. Freud, K. Jung, A. Adler; representatives of the humanistic school of A. Maslow and K. Rogers.

course work, added 12/12/2009


Brief biographical information from the life of the famous psychologist A. Maslow. The essence, basic concepts and principles of the humanistic theory of personality. The concept of self-actualization by A. Maslow, its fundamental provisions. Hierarchy of human needs.

presentation, added 04/29/2014


Personality as a subject of humanistic psychology. Humanistic theory of Erich Fromm: freedom and existential needs of man. Psychology of Abraham Maslow: hierarchy of motives, self-actualization and human creativity. Viktor Frankl on the meaning of life.

abstract, added 09/17/2008


Characteristics of the humanistic theory of personality. A. Maslow's theory of personality. The main advantages of humanistic theory. Psychoanalytic theory of personality. Unconscious defense mechanisms, used to ensure integrity and stability of the individual.

abstract, added 03/23/2011


The history of the formation of humanistic psychology as a science. Hierarchical model of needs according to A. Maslow. The essence of the concept of "congruence". Frankl as the founder of the "third Viennese direction of psychotherapy." Variables of the psychotherapeutic process.

test, added 12/15/2009


Humanistic theory of personality by A. Maslow: assessment of self-actualization, characteristics of self-actualizing people. Humanistic theory of K. Rogers. Field of experience. Self. Ideal self. Congruence and incongruence. Tendency towards self-actualization.

test, added 12/04/2007


Personality and its individual characteristics, structure and orientation. Study of personality traits using the psychodynamic theory of Freud, analytical Jung, humanistic Rogers and Maslow, cognitive, behavioral and activity theories.

abstract, added 05/27/2009


R. Cattell's theory of personality traits. "Sixteen Personality Factors." Personality traits that are predictable psychological characteristics. Hans Eysenck's theory of personality types. Personality psychology in the theory of G. Allport. "Man is an objective reality."