Guess the object One participant in the game thinks of any object. The second participant must guess what the object is from the description. The difficulty lies in the fact that the first player first names the most common features. For example: “This object is usually round in shape. He might be where

Laboratory and practical lesson 1 Topic: "The subject of conflictology and research methods" The degree of conflict Task 1. Here are ten pairs of statements. Read each statement and mark (with a cross) how many points you have for the property marked in

Get to Know the Object You will need five to ten objects or toys and their images in the form of drawings or photographs. Moreover, it is desirable to make images from unusual angles, so that the subject is more difficult to recognize. Place objects in front of the child, and then show

P.Ya. Shvartsman, I.V. Kuznetsova. Pedology // Repressed science. Issue 2. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1994, pp. 121-139.

Among the desecrated sciences, pedology occupies, perhaps, a special place. There are only a few witnesses of its flourishing, but we habitually judge its death by the well-known decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks of July 4, 1936, the mention of which importunately migrates from one dictionary to another with unchanged remarks. A closer and less orthodox view of pedology was until recently perceived as a slander on Soviet pedagogy, undermining its very foundations. In the current historical situation, there are calls for the revival and development of domestic pedology. We will try to give an analysis of the development of pedology, its ideas, methodology and prospects for revival.

We can say that pedology had a relatively long prehistory, a rapid and complete history.

There are conflicting views on the starting date in the history of pedology. It is attributed either to the 18th century. and are associated with the name of D. Tiedemann 1 , or by the 19th century. in connection with the works of L.A. Quetelet and timed to coincide with the publication of the works of the great teachers J.Zh. Russo, Ya.A. Comenius and others. “The wisest educators teach children that,” wrote Zh.Zh. Rousseau in his "Introduction to" Emile "in 1762 - what is important for an adult to know, without taking into account what children are able to learn. They are constantly looking for a person in a child, without thinking about what he is before becoming a person.

The primary sources of pedology, therefore, are in a rather distant past, and if we take them into account as the basis for pedagogical theory and practice, then they are in a very distant past.

The formation of pedology is associated with the name of I. Herbart (1776-1841), who creates a system of such a psychology, on which, as one of the foundations, pedagogy should be built, and for the first time, his followers began to systematically develop educational psychology 2 .

Usually, educational psychology was defined as a branch of applied psychology, which deals with the application of psychology data to the process of education and training. This science, on the one hand, should draw from general psychology results that are of interest to pedagogy, and on the other hand, discuss pedagogical provisions from the point of view of their correspondence to psychological laws. Unlike didactics and private methods that decide how a teacher should teach, the task of educational psychology is to find out how students learn.

In the process of formation of pedagogical psychology, in the middle of the 19th century, there was an intensified restructuring of general psychology. Under the influence of the developing experimental natural science, in particular the experimental physiology of the sense organs, psychology also became experimental. Herbartian psychology with its abstract-deductive method (the reduction of psychology to the mechanics of the flow of ideas) was replaced by Wundtian experimental psychology, which studies mental phenomena using the methods of experimental physiology. Educational psychology is increasingly calling itself experimental pedagogy, or experimental educational psychology.

There are, as it were, two stages in the development of experimental pedagogy 3: the end of the 19th century. (mechanical transfer of the findings of general experimental psychology to pedagogy), and the 20th century. (The subject of experimental research in psychological laboratories is the very problems of learning).

The experimental pedagogy of that time reveals some age-related mental characteristics of children, their individual characteristics, the technique and economics of memorization and the application of psychology to learning 4,5.

A general picture of a child's life was also supposed to be given by another, as they believed, special science - the science of young age 4, which, in addition to psychological data, required research into the child's physical life, knowledge of the dependence of a growing person's life on external, especially social conditions, his upbringing. Thus, the need for a special science of children, pedology, was derived from the development of pedagogical psychology and experimental pedagogy 3 .

The same need also grew out of child psychology, which, in contrast to educational psychology with its applied nature, grew out of evolutionary concepts and experimental natural science, raising, together with questions about the phylogenetic development of man, the question of his ontogenetic development. Under the influence of discussions in evolutionary theory, a genetic psychology began to be created, mainly in the USA (especially among psychologists grouped around Stanley Hall), which considered it impossible to study the mental development of a child in isolation from his physical development. As a result, it was proposed to create a new science - pedology, which would be devoid of this shortcoming and would give a more complete picture of the age development of the child. "The science of the child or pedology - it is often confused with genetic psychology, while it is only the main part of the latter - arose relatively recently and has made significant progress over the past decade" 6 .

Let us note, however, the fact that by the time pedology was formed as an independent scientific direction, the stock of knowledge was too poor both in experimental pedagogical psychology, and in the psychology of childhood, and in those biological sciences that could underlie ideas about human individuality. This applies, first of all, to the state of only the emerging human genetics.

The originality of a separate science, however, is demonstrated by its defining apparatus and research methods. As a substantiation of the independence of science 7, the analysis of its own methods is of particular interest.

Despite the fact that pedology was called upon to give a picture of the development of the child and the unity of his mental and physical properties, using a comprehensive, systematic approach to the study of childhood, having previously dialectically solved the problem of the “bio-socio” relationship in research methodology, from the very beginning priority is given to psychological study child (even the founder of pedology, St. Hall, considers pedology only a part of genetic psychology), and this hegemony is maintained naturally or artificially throughout the history of science. Such a one-sided understanding of pedology did not satisfy E. Maiman, 4 who considers the psychological study of the child alone to be inferior and considers it necessary to provide a broad physiological and anthropological substantiation of pedology. In pedology, he also includes pathological and psychopathological studies of the development of the child, to which many psychiatrists devoted their work.

But the inclusion of physiological and anthropological components in pedological research does not yet satisfy the existence of pedology as an independent and original science. The reason for dissatisfaction is illustrated by the following thought: “We must tell the truth: even now pedology courses are actually a vinaigrette from the most diverse branches of knowledge, a simple collection of information from various sciences, everything that relates to the child. But is such a vinaigrette a special independent science? Of course not." 8 From this point of view, what E. Meiman understands by pedology is a “simple vinaigrette” (although 90% composed of homogeneous psychological material and only 10% of materials from other sciences). In this case, the question of the subject of pedology is posed in such a way that for the first time the work of the author himself, P.P. Blonsky, which, therefore, should be "the first stone in the building of genuine pedology."

In this regard, let us dwell on the understanding of the subject of pedology by prof. P.P. Blonsky. He gives four formulas for its definition, three of which mutually complement and develop each other, and the fourth (and last) contradicts them all and, apparently, was formulated under the influence of social order. The first formula defines pedology as the science of the characteristics of childhood. This is the most general formula encountered earlier by other authors 9 .

The second formula defines pedology as "the science of the growth, constitution and behavior of a typical mass child in various childhood epochs". So, if the first formula only points to the child as an object of pedology, then the second says that pedology should study it not from any one side, but from different; at the same time, a limitation is introduced: not every child in general, but a typical mass child, is studied by pedology. Both of these formulas only prepare the third, which gives the definition its final form: "Pedology studies the symptom complexes of various epochs, phases and stages of childhood in their temporal sequence and in their dependence on various conditions." The content of the subject of pedology in the last formula is revealed more fully than in the previous ones. Nevertheless, significant difficulties associated with the question of defining pedology as a science (fourth formula) remain unsurmounted.

They boil down mainly to the following: the child as a subject of study is a natural phenomenon no less complex than the adult himself; in many respects even more difficult questions may arise here. Naturally, such a complex object from the very beginning required a differentiated cognitive attitude towards itself. It is exactly the same as in the study of man generally Since ancient times, such scientific disciplines as anatomy, physiology and psychology have arisen, studying the same subject, but each from its own point of view, likewise, in the study of the child, from the very beginning, these same paths were used, thanks to which anatomy, physiology arose and developed. and psychology of early childhood.

With development, the differentiation of this knowledge always increases. In this respect, the scientific knowledge of the child is far from having completed its differentiation even today. On the other hand, in order to understand many of the special functions and patterns of child development, a general concept of childhood is needed as a special period in human ontogenesis and phylogenesis, the provisions of which would guide the research of special sciences, the process of education and training.

In this understanding, pedology was given a special, and sometimes unjustifiably superior place among other sciences that study the child 6,13. The sciences that study the child also investigate the process of development of various aspects of the child's nature, establishing epochs, phases and stages. It is clear that each of these areas of the child's nature is not something simple and homogeneous; in each of them, the researcher encounters the most diverse and complex phenomena. Studying the development of these individual phenomena, each researcher can, should and in fact strives, without going beyond his own field, to trace not only individual lines of development of these phenomena, but also their mutual connection with each other at different levels, their relationships and all that complex configuration. , which they form in their totality at a certain stage of ontogeny. In other words, in a single psychological study of a child, the researcher faces the task of identifying complex "age-related symptom complexes" in exactly the same way as it arises in the anatomical and physiological study of him. But only these will be either morphological, or physiological, or psychological symptom complexes, the only peculiarity of which is that they will be one-sided, which does not prevent them from remaining very complex and naturally organized within themselves.

Thus, pedology not only considers the age-related symptom complex, but it must make a cumulative analysis of everything that is accumulated by individual scientific disciplines that study the child. Moreover, this analysis is not a simple sum of heterogeneous information, mechanically combined on the basis of their belonging. In essence, this should be a synthesis based on the organic connection of the constituent parts into a single whole, and not simply their combination with each other, in the process of which a number of independently complex questions may arise; those. pedology as a science was supposed to lead to achievements of a higher order, to the solution of new problems, which, of course, are not any final problems of knowledge, but are only part of one problem - the problem of man.

Proceeding from such provisions, it was believed that the boundaries of pedological research are very extensive, and there is no reason to narrow them down in any way 4,10. When studying the child as a whole, the researcher's field of vision should include not only the "symptoms" of certain states of the child, but also the process of ontogeny itself, the change and transition from one state to another. In addition, an important task of the study was something in the middle, typical, something that immediately covers a wide range of studied properties. A huge variety of all kinds of features - individual, sexual, social, etc. - was also the material for pedological research. The task of systematizing scientific data in various areas of the study of the child was considered a priority.

The above consideration of the defining apparatus of pedology can be supplemented with two more definitions of pedology, which were in use until 1931: 1) Pedology is the science of the factors, patterns, stages and types of the socio-biological formation of the individual, development of new increasingly complex mechanisms under the influence of new factors, about the breaking, restructuring, transformation of functions and the material substrates underlying them in the conditions of the growth of the child's organism.

Thus, there was no consensus on pedology; the content of science was understood differently, accordingly, the boundaries of pedological research varied widely, and the very fact of the formation of an independent science was disputed for a long time, which is natural in the early period of the development of science, but, as will be seen from what follows, these problems were not solved in pedology in the future.

A kind of attempt to build a system of methods of pedology are the works of S.S. Youthful 12 . He proceeds from the following provisions: every act of a growing organism is a process of balancing it with the environment and can be objectively understood only from its functional state (1); it is a holistic process in which the organism is responsible for the environmental situation with all its aspects and functions (2); restoration of the disturbed balance of the human body with the environment is at the same time the process of its change, therefore, any act of the human body can be understood only dynamically, not only as an act of detection, but also as an act of growth, restructuring and consolidation of the behavior system (3); it is possible to approach the type of behavior, its stable, more or less constant moments, only by studying a series of integral acts of human behavior, for only they are capable of revealing its available fund and its further possibilities (4); the moments of the organism's behavior accessible to our perception are links in the chain of the reaction process: they can become indicators of this process only when comparing the situation of the environment that initiates the process with the visible response that completes it (5).

These provisions of S.S. Molozhavy were very actively challenged by Ya.I. Shapiro 13 .

The method of observation was considered very promising among pedologists. A prominent place in its development belongs to M.Ya. Basov and his school, which worked at the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen. Two types of methods of pedological work were distinguished: the method of studying the processes of behavior and the method of studying all kinds of results of these processes. Behavior was supposed to be studied from the point of view of the structure of behavioral processes and the factors that determine them. In this case, behavior was usually opposed to experimental research. Such a contrast, however, is not entirely correct, since the experiment is also applicable to the study of behavioral processes, if we are talking about a natural experiment in which the child is in conditions of life situations.

The tendency of pedologists, who defended the independence of their science, to look for new methodological paths is manifested especially clearly in the heated discussion around the question of the method of psychological tests. Since the use of this method in our country was one of the reasons for the destruction of pedology, we should dwell on it in more detail. Numerous works devoted to the use of the test methodology put forward a huge number of arguments for and against its use in pedology 10, 14-20.

A fierce discussion and the widespread use of test methods in public education in our country (practically every student had to go through a test assessment) led to the fact that even today pedology is most often recalled in connection with the use of tests with the "fear" of revealing oneself as a result of testing. A variety of tests were developed and applied for the first time in the United States. The first broad review of American tests in Russian to identify the mental giftedness and school success of children was given by N.A. Buchholz and A.M. Schubert in 1926. 19 An analysis of these tests, their tasks and results leads the authors to the conclusion that their application in pedology is undoubtedly promising. Scientific psychological commission, which worked out for 1919-1921. a series of well-known to this day "National Tests", designed for use in all public schools in the United States, defined the task of these studies as follows: 1) to help subdivide children of various school groups into smaller subgroups: children who are mentally stronger and mentally weaker; 2) to help the teacher navigate the individual characteristics of the children of the group with which this teacher begins to work for the first time; 3) to help uncover those individual reasons why individual children cannot adapt to class work and school life; 4) to promote the cause of vocational guidance for children, if only for the purpose of preliminary selection of those suitable for more highly skilled work 19 .

In the mid 20s. tests are beginning to be widely distributed in our country, first in scientific research, and by the end of the 20s. introduced into the practice of schools and other children's institutions. On the basis of tests, the giftedness and success of children are determined; forecasts of learning ability, specific didactic and educational recommendations of teachers are given; original domestic tests similar to Binet's tests are being developed. Testing is carried out in natural conditions for schoolchildren, in a classroom team 10,20,21; tests become mass, and the results can be statistically processed. These tests allow us to judge not only the success of the student, but also the work of teachers and the school as a whole. For the period of the 20s. it was one of the most objective criteria in evaluating the work of the school. An objective and quantitatively more accurate record of the success of children is necessary in order to monitor the comparative characteristics of different schools, the growth in the success of various children compared to the average increase in the success of a school group. Thus, the “mental age” of the student is determined, which allows him to be transferred to a group that is most appropriate for his intellectual development and, on the other hand, to form more homogeneous training groups. This contradicts the totalitarian tenets of egalitarian education, the failure of which has been experienced by several generations.

In American schools, the individualization of learning underlies the formation of class groups to this day. Our previously fierce, and now increasingly weakened, resistance to such an “assault” on the integrity of class teams, the desire to educate a person who is not really socially active, who would easily come into contact with any new group of people, would learn to understand and love not only a narrow circle, but and all people, to educate “philanthropists”, and not a socially closed person in a team, apparently, is a consequence of the unitarity of the state, the dominance of authoritarianism, the closeness of the individual, our thinking.

The method of tests was credited with “transforming pedology from a science of general and subjective reasoning into a science that studies reality” 3 .

Criticism of the test method usually boiled down to the following points: 1) tests are characterized by a purely experimental beginning; 2) they take into account not the process, but the result of the process; 3) criticized the standardized bias at the expense of the statistical method; 4) the tests are superficial, far from the deep mechanism of the child's behavior.

Criticism was based on a fairly strong initial imperfection of the tests. The practice of many years of using the test method abroad and in recent domestic psychodiagnostics has shown the inconsistency of such criticism in many positions and its insufficient validity.

Differences in the application of the test method in the theory and practice of pedology can be reduced to three main points of view:

• the use of testing was fundamentally rejected 12,20;
• limited use of tests (in terms of coverage and conditions) was allowed, with the obligatory primacy of other research methods 10,16,22;
• the need for widespread introduction of tests in research and practical work was recognized 18,19,23.

However, with the exception of some works 24 , in Soviet pedology the primacy remained with psychological methods.

After getting acquainted with the subject and methods of science, it is necessary to consider the originality of the main stages of its development.

Critical analysis of the development of pedology in the USSR is devoted to the work of many authors during the period of formation of pedology in our country 3,10,13,25. One of the first domestic pedological works is the study of A.P. Nechaev, and then his school. In his "Experimental Psychology in its Relation to Questions of School Education"27 he outlined possible ways of experimental psychological investigation of didactic problems. A.P. Nechaev and his students studied individual mental functions (memory, attention, judgment, etc.). Under the guidance of prof. Nechaev in 1901, a laboratory of experimental pedagogical psychology was organized in St. Petersburg, in the fall of 1904 the first pedological courses in Russia were opened, and in 1906 the First All-Russian Congress on Educational Psychology was convened with a special exhibition and short-term pedological courses.

In Moscow, work in this area also began to develop. G.I. Rossolimo in 1911 founded and at his own expense maintained a clinic for nervous diseases of childhood, transformed into a special Institute of Child Psychology and Neurology. The result of the work of his school was the original method of "psychological profiles" 49 , in which G.I. Rosselimo went further than A.P. Nechaev along the path of splitting the psyche into separate functions: to compile a complete “psychological profile”, it is proposed to investigate 38 separate mental functions, ten experiments for each psychological function. G.I.Rosselimo’s methodology quickly took root and was used in the form of a “mass psychological profile”. But his works were also limited only to the psyche, without touching upon the biological features of the child's ontogeny. The dominant research method of the Rossolimo school was experiment, which was criticized by contemporaries for the "artificiality of the laboratory environment." The characterization of the child given by G.I. Rossolimo, with the differentiation of children only by sex and age, without taking into account their social and class affiliation (!).

The founder and creator of pedology in the USSR is also called V.M. Bekhterev 29, who back in 1903 expressed the idea of ​​the need to create a special institution for the study of children - a pedagogical institute in connection with the creation of the Psychoneurological Institute in St. Petersburg. The Institute's project was submitted to the Russian Society for Normal and Pathological Psychology. In addition to the psychological department, the pedological department was included for experimental and other research, and a scientific center for the study of personality was created. In connection with the foundation of the department of pedology at V.M. Bekhterev came up with the idea of ​​creating the Pedological Institute, which existed at first as a private institution (with funds donated by V.T. Zimin). The director of the institute was K.I. Povarnin. The Institute was financially poorly supported, and V.M. Bekhterev had to submit a number of notes and applications to government authorities. On this occasion, he wrote: “The purpose of the institution was so important and tangible that it was not necessary to think about creating it even with modest funds. We were only interested in the tasks underlying this institution” 29 .

Bekhterev's students note that he considered the following problems urgent for pedology: the study of the laws of a developing personality, the use of school age for education, the use of a number of measures to prevent abnormal development, protection from the decline of intelligence and morality, and the development of self-activity of the individual.

Thanks to the tirelessness of V.M. Bekhterev, a number of institutions were created to implement these ideas: pedological and research institutes, an auxiliary school for the handicapped, an otophonetic institute, an educational and clinical institute for nervously ill children, an institute for moral education, and a children's psychiatric clinic. He united all these institutions with a scientific and laboratory department - the Institute for the Study of the Brain, as well as a scientific and clinical - Pathoreflexological Institute. The general scheme of the biosocial study of the child according to Bekhterev is as follows: 1) the introduction of reflexological methods into the field of study of the child; 2) the study of the autonomic nervous system and the connection between the central nervous system and the endocrine glands; 3) comparative study of the ontogeny of human and animal behavior; 4) study of the full development of brain regions; 5) study of the environment; 6) the impact of the social environment on development; 7) children's handicap; 8) child psychopathy; 9) childhood neuroses; 10) labor reflexology; 11) reflexological pedagogy; 12) the reflexological method in teaching literacy 30 .

The work in the children's institutions listed above was carried out under the guidance of professors A.S. Griboedova, P.G. Belsky, D.V. Felderg. The closest collaborators in the field of pedology were at first K.I. Povarin, and then N.M. Shchelovanov. For 9 years of existence of the first Pedological Institute with a very small number of employees, 48 ​​scientific papers were published.

V.M. Bekhterev is considered the founder of pedoreflexology in its main areas: genetic reflexology with a clinic, the study of the first stages of the development of the child's nervous activity, age reflexology for preschool and school age, collective and individual reflexology. The basis of pedoreflexology included the study of the laws of temporary and permanent functional relationships of the main parts of the central nervous system and parts of the brain in their sequential development, depending on age data in connection with the action of hormones in a particular period of childhood, as well as depending on environmental conditions. 29

In 1915, G. Troshin's book "Comparative Psychology of Normal and Abnormal Children" 31 was published, in which the author criticizes the method of "psychological profiles" for excessive fragmentation of the psyche and the conditions in which the experiment is carried out, and proposes his own method based on biological principles studying the child, which in many respects has something in common with the methodology of V.M. Bekhterev. However, the works of Prof. A.F. Lazursky, deepening the method of observation. In 1918 his book The Natural Experiment 32 appeared. His student and follower is the already mentioned prof. M.Ya. bass.

The study of the anatomical and morphological features of a growing person, along with the work of the school of V.M. Bekhterev, is conducted under the guidance of prof. N.P. Gundobin, specialist in children's diseases. His book Peculiarities of Childhood, published in 1906, sums up the results of his and his collaborators' work and is a classic 9 .

In 1921, three pedological institutions were formed in Moscow at once: the Central Pedological Institute, the Medical Pedological Institute, and the Psychological and Pedological Department of the 2nd Moscow State University. However, the Central Pedological Institute dealt almost exclusively with the psychology of childhood; The very name of the newly organized department at the 2nd Moscow State University showed that its founders did not yet have a clear idea of ​​what pedology is. And finally, in 1922, the Medico-Pedological Institute published a collection entitled "On Child Psychology and Psychopathology", in the very first article of which it is said that the main task of the named institute is the study of children's defects.

In the same year, 1922, E.A. Arkin's book "Preschool Age" 24 was published, which very fully and seriously covers the issues of biology and hygiene of the child and (again there is no synthesis!) very few questions of the psyche and behavior.

A great revival in the field of the study of childhood was brought by the First All-Russian Congress on Psychoneurology, which took place in Moscow in 1923, with a special section on pedology, at which 24 reports were heard. The section paid much attention to the question of the essence of pedology. For the first time, the demagogic appeal of A.B. Zalkind about the transformation of pedology into a purely social science, about the creation of "our Soviet pedology".

Shortly after the congress in Orel, a special Pedological Journal began to appear. In the same 1993, a monograph by M.Ya. Basov "Experience in the methodology of psychological observations" 33 as a result of the work of his school. Being to a large extent the successor of the work of A.F. Lazursky with his natural experiment, M.Ya. Basov pays even more attention to the factor of naturalness in the study of the child, developing a method for conducting long-term objective observation of the child in the natural conditions of his life, which makes it possible to holistically characterize the living child's personality. This technique quickly won the sympathy of teachers and pedologists and began to be widely used.

In January 1924, the Second Psychoneurological Congress took place in Leningrad. At this congress, pedology occupied an even more significant place. A number of reports on genetic reflexology by N.M. Shchelovanov and his staff was devoted to the study of early childhood.

In 1925, the work of P.P. Blonsky "Pedology" 35 - an attempt to formalize pedology as an independent scientific discipline and at the same time the first textbook on pedology for students of pedagogical institutes. In 1925 P.P. Blonsky publishes two more works: "Pedology in the mass school of the first stage" 36 and "Fundamentals of Pedagogy". 23 Both books provide material on the application of pedology in the field of education and training, and their author becomes one of the most prominent propagandists of pedology, especially its applied significance. The first book provides important material for understanding the process of teaching writing and counting. In the second, a theoretical substantiation of the pedagogical process is given.

By the same time, the publication of a brochure by S.S. Molozhavy: "Program for studying the behavior of a child or a children's team" 37 , in which the main attention is paid to the study of the environment surrounding the child, and the characteristics of the child's behavior in connection with the influence of the environment, but very little is taken into account its anatomical and physiological features.

By the end of 1925, the USSR had already accumulated a significant number of publications that could be attributed to pedology. However, in most publications there is no systematic analysis, which M.Ya.Basov spoke about, defining pedology as an independent science. The authors of a small part of the studies 10,25,36,38 try to adhere to that synthetic level, which makes it possible to judge the child and childhood as a special period as a whole, and not from separate sides.

Since pedology is a science about a person that affects his social status, the contradictions from the scientific often passed into the ideological sphere, took on a political coloring.

In the spring of 1927, a pedological conference was convened in Moscow at the People's Commissariat for Education of the USSR (?), which brought together all the most prominent workers in the field of pedology. The main issues discussed at this meeting were: the role of the environment, heredity and constitution in the development of the child; the importance of the collective as a factor shaping the child's personality; methods of studying the child (mainly a discussion on the method of tests); correlation of reflexology and psychology, etc.

The problem of the relationship between the environment and heredity, studied by pedology, has caused especially fierce controversy.

The most prominent representative of the sociogenic trend in pedology, one of the first to promote the primacy of the environment in the development of the child, was A.B. Zalkind. A psychiatrist by education, a specialist in sexual education, whose work was built solely on the basis of ideas about the sociogenic development of the individual and on Marxist phraseology.

The popularity of views on the bioplasticity of the body, especially the body of a child, was supported by "genetic reflexologists", emphasizing the large and early influence of the cortex and the wide limits of this influence. They believed that the CNS has maximum plasticity and that all evolution is moving towards an increase in this plasticity. At the same time, there are types of the nervous system that are constitutionally determined. For the practice of education, it is important "the presence of this plasticity, so that heredity is not given the place that conservative-minded teachers give it, and at the same time, taking into account the type of work of the nervous system for the individualization of education and for taking into account in terms of education of nervous hygiene, the constitutional features of the nervous system" 40.

The main objections that this trend has met from a number of educators and pedologists 3,10,24 boil down to the fact that recognition of the limitless possibilities of bioplasticity, extreme "pedological optimism" and insufficient consideration of the significance of hereditary and constitutional inclinations in practice lead to an underestimation of individualization in education , exorbitantly high demands on the child and the teacher and their overload.

In a report at a meeting in 1927, V.G. Stefko. The constitution of an organism is determined by: 1) hereditary factors acting in known laws of inheritance; 2) exogenous factors affecting gametes; 3) exogenous factors affecting the embryo; 4) exogenous factors affecting the body after birth 42 .

The trend of the determining influence of the environment on the development of the organism in comparison with hereditary influences, although clearly revealed at this meeting, but, thanks to the significant opposition of many researchers, has not yet become self-sufficient, the only acceptable one and has dominated our country for more than a dozen years.

The second debatable issue was the problem of the relationship between the individual and the team. In connection with the installation of the Soviet school to “renounce individualistic tendencies”, the question arose of a “new” understanding of the child, since the target of the teacher “in our labor school is not an individual child, but a growing children's team. The child in this collective is interesting insofar as he is an endogenous irritant of the collective.

On the basis of the latest understanding of the child, a new part of pedology was to develop - the pedology of the collective. The new direction was headed by the head of the Ukrainian school of researchers of the children's team prof. A.A. Zaluzhny, proceeding from the following methodological socially ordered premise: pedagogical practice does not know the individual child, but only the collective; The teacher gets to know the individual child through the collective. A good student for a teacher is a good student in a given children's team, compared with other children that make up this team. Pedagogical practice pushes for collectivism, pedagogical theory - for individualism. Hence the need to "rebuild the theory" 21 . Like A.B. Salkind, prof. A.A. Zaluzhny also advocated a new "Soviet" pedology. Thus, the pedology and pedagogy that have existed until now, nurtured on the ideas of Rousseau and Locke, are declared reactionary, since too much attention is paid to the child himself, his heredity, the patterns of formation of his personality, while it is necessary in a team, through a team, to educate on the system will need members of the team - social cogs, spare parts for the system.

Issues of collective pedology were also dealt with by prof. G.A. Fortunatov 43 and G.V. Murashov with employees. They developed a methodology for studying the children's team. E.A. Arkin, mentioned above, also studied the constitutional types of children in a team. His division of the members of the collective according to the tendency to be more extraversion in boys and introversion in girls has attracted sharp criticism.

At a meeting in 1927, it was decided to convene an All-Union Pedological Congress in December of the same year with a broad representation of all areas of pedology. In the preparatory period before the congress there was a change in the balance of forces. In just six months, the number of supporters of the sociological direction in pedology has increased greatly. Perestroika in pedology was in full swing, and the crisis was basically over by the congress. There may be several reasons for this, but they are all interconnected.

1. From the unformed, veiled, the social order became clearly formulated, proclaimed, on the basis of which the methodology of science was built. The maximum "bioplasticity" and the decisive transformative impact of the environment turned from the opinion of individual pedologists into the creed of pedology - "revolutionary optimism". An illustration can serve as a statement by N.I. Bukharin, which was voiced a little later at the pedagogical congress, which is very significant for that period, and which the authors risk quoting in full, despite the cumbersomeness of the quote:

“Supporters of the biogenetic law, without any limitation, or those who are fond of it, suffer from the fact that they transfer biological laws to the phenomena of the social series and consider them identical. This is an undoubted mistake and stands in an absolutely undoubted connection with a number of biological theories (racial theory, the doctrine of historical and non-historical peoples, etc.). We do not at all stand on the point of view of abstract equality, abstract people; it is an absurd theory that cries out to heaven because of its helplessness and contradiction with the facts. But we are heading towards ensuring that there is no division into non-historical and historical peoples ... Silent the theoretical prerequisite for this is what you pedologists call the plasticity of the organism, those. an opportunity to catch up in a short time, make up for what was lost ... If we stood on the point of view that racial or national characteristics are such stable values ​​that they need to be changed for thousands of years, then, of course, all our work would be absurd, because it was built would be on the sand. A number of organic racial theorists extend their theoretical construction to the problem of classes. The propertied classes (in their opinion) possess the best traits, the best brains and other magnificent qualities, which predetermine and forever perpetuate their domination of a certain group of persons, certain social categories, and find for this domination a natural-scientific, primarily biological, justification. No great research has been carried out on this subject, but even if, which I do not rule out, we have received by a circle more perfect brains among the propertied classes, at least among their cadres, than among the proletariat, then in the end does this mean that these theories are right? It does not mean, because it was so, but it will be otherwise, because such prerequisites are being created that allow the proletariat, under the conditions of plasticity of the organism, to make up for what has been lost and completely redesign itself, or, as Marx put it, to change its own nature ... If it were not for this plasticity of the organism... Then the silent premise would be slow change and comparatively little influence of the social environment; the proportion between pre-social adjustments and social adjustments would be such that the center of gravity would lie in pre-social adjustments, and social adjustments would play a small role, and then there would be no way out, the worker would be biologically attached to the convict wheelbarrow ... Therefore, the question about the social environment and the influence of the social environment must be decided in such a way that the influence of the social environment plays a greater role than is usually supposed.

2. The ideological conjuncture not only opened the “green light” to all sociologists of pedology, turning it from a science that studies the child into a science that describes facts that confirm ideological premises, and mainly studies the environment and its impact on the child, and not on him, but and disgraced any other scientific dissent: "He who is not with us is against us."

3. The fundamental idea of ​​"unity" in the country, which stood for unitarity, extended to pedology, where the faster development of science required the unification of scientific forces; however, this explanation was allowed by the “tops” and was promoted and carried out among pedologists only under the banner of the primacy of environmental influence on the body.

The first pedological congress was called upon to complete the transformation of pedology, to give a demonstrative battle to dissent, to unite the disparate ranks of pedologists on a single platform. But if only these tasks were set before the congress, it would hardly have been possible to carry it out according to a scenario reminiscent of the scenario of the famous session of VASKhNIL. The congress also faced other tasks, the relevance of which was understood by all pedologists without exception.

The following scientific problems required urgent analysis and solution:

the complete isolation of pedology from pediatrics, and hence the narrow therapeutic and hygienic bias of pediatrics, on the one hand, and the underuse by pedology of the most valuable biological materials available in pediatrics, on the other; lack of connection between pedology and pedagogical practice; lack of practical methods in many areas of research and insufficient implementation of existing ones.

There were also organizational problems: the relationship between pedology and the People's Commissariat of Health and the People's Commissariat of Education was unclear, the boundaries of their functions were not defined; lack of planning on a national scale of research work on pedology, drift and disproportion of various areas of research; the lack of a regular position for pedological practitioners, which was a brake on the creation of their own personnel; lack of funding for pedological research;

ambiguity in the demarcation of the work of pedologists of various scientific and practical training, which led to difficulties in the university training of pedologists and striated work; the need to create a central all-Union pedological journal and a society coordinating and covering the work 45 .

Proceeding from the problems posed before the congress, it can be concluded that the congress envisaged internal and external formalization in pedology. The congress was organized by the scientific and pedagogical section of the Main Academic Council (GUS), Narkompros and Narkomzdrav with the participation of over 2,000 people. More than 40 leading specialists in the field of pedology were elected to the presidium of the congress, N.I. Bukharin, A.V. Lunacharsky, N.K. Krupskaya, N.A. Semashko, I.P. Pavlova and others.

The grand opening and the first day of the congress were scheduled for December 27, 1927 in the classroom building of the 2nd Moscow State University. The tragic death of acad. V.M. Bekhtereva shocked the congress and postponed its beginning. V.M. Bekhterev had just graduated from the psycho-neurological congress and actively participated in the preparation of the pedological congress. The congress was absorbed by the death of the academician, many of its employees withdrew their reports and left for home. The first day of the congress was entirely devoted to the memory of V.M. Bekhterev and his funeral.

The work of the congress took place from December 28, 1927 to January 4, 1928. A.B. Zalkind. He said that the tasks of the congress boiled down to taking into account the work done by Soviet pedologists, identifying directions and groupings among them, linking pedology with pedagogy, and uniting Soviet pedology "into a single team." On December 28, 29, 30 the plenum of the congress worked; from December 30 to January 4, seven sections worked in special areas. Four main sections were defined in the work of the plenary sessions of the congress: political and ideological problems, general questions of pedology, the problem of the methodology of studying childhood, and labor pedology.

Political and ideological problems were touched upon in the speeches of N.I. Bukharin, A.V. Lunacharsky, N.K. Krupskaya and the report of A.B. Zalkind Pedology in the USSR. N.I. Bukharin mainly spoke about the relationship between pedology and pedagogy. In addition, he tried to smooth over from his position the differences in the methodological plan of the schools of V.M. Bekhterev and I.P. Pavlova. A.V. Lunacharsky, like N.I. Bukharin, emphasized the need for an early union of pedagogy and pedology, their interpenetration. On the same occasion, N.K. Krupskaya.

From a historical point of view, it is not without interest to cite excerpts from the speeches at the congress of these historical figures who had a direct and indirect influence on the development of pedology.

N.K. Krupskaya: “Pedology is materialistic in its very essence... Modern pedology has a lot of shades: whoever simplifies the question and underestimates the influence of the social environment is even inclined to see in pedology some kind of antidote against Marxism, which is taking root deeper and deeper into the school; who, on the contrary, go too far and underestimate heredity and the influence of the general laws of development.

A serious drawback hindering the implementation of the Gus platform was its pedological underdevelopment - the lack of sufficiently clear indications in science about the educational capacity of each age, about its specific features that require age-specific individualization, a program approach.

Even the little done by pedology in the development of methods of teaching and education shows what enormous prospects there are, how much it is possible to facilitate learning by applying the pedological approach, how much can be achieved in terms of education” 46 .

A.V. Lunacharsky: “The stronger the bond between pedology and pedagogy, the sooner pedology is admitted to pedagogical work, to contact with the pedagogical process, the sooner it will grow. Our school network can approach a really normal school network in a socialist, Marxist-scientific state building its own culture, when it is thoroughly permeated with a network of sufficiently scientifically trained pedologists. In addition to saturating our school with pedologists, it is also necessary that in every teacher, in the brain of every teacher, there lives, perhaps, a small but strong enough pedologist. And one more thing - to introduce pedology as one of the main subjects in the preparation of a teacher, and introduce it seriously, so that a person who knows pedology teaches” 47 .

N.I. Bukharin: “The relationship between pedology and pedagogy is the relationship between theoretical discipline, on the one hand, and normative discipline, on the other; moreover, this ratio is such that, from a certain point of view, pedology is a servant of pedagogy. But this does not mean that the category of a maid is the category of a cook who has not learned to manage. On the contrary, the position of the maid here is one in which this maid gives directive instructions to the normative scientific discipline she serves. 44

The main profiling report of the congress was the report of A.B. Zalkind "Pedology in the USSR", devoted to general issues of pedology, which summed up the work done, named the main areas of pedology that existed at that time, institutions involved in pedological research and practice. The report practically summed up the results of all research on childhood over the past decades, and not just pedology. Apparently, this is why the congress itself was already so numerous, because doctors, teachers, psychologists, physiologists, and pedologists were present and spoke at it.

The complex problem of the methodology of childhood was developed in the reports of S.S. Youthful, V.G. Shtefko, A.G. Ivanov-Smolensky, M.Ya. Basova, K.N. Kornilova, A.S. Zalugny and others.

In the debate on methodological reports, a negative attitude to the exceptional significance of the physiological method was revealed, and a significant dispute arose between representatives of the Bekhterev and Pavlov schools on the understanding of mental phenomena.

Some of the speakers demanded the "destruction" of disagreements between the schools of V.M. Bekhterev and I.P. Pavlov and the "establishment" of practical conclusions, on the basis of which it would be possible to carry out further pedological work.

An in-depth study of general and particular issues of pedology took place in seven sections: research and methodological, preschool, preschool, school age (two sections), a difficult child, organizational and program.

In general, the congress went according to the planned scenario: pedology received official recognition, “united” its disparate forces, demonstrating firsthand who the “future” of pedology is, and outlined ways of cooperation with pediatrics and pedagogy as a methodological basis. After the congress, the voluminous journal "Pedology" began to be published under the editorship of prof. A.B. Zalkind, the first issues of which were mainly collected from reports made at the congress. Pedology receives the necessary funding, and practically the period from the beginning of 1928 to 1931 is the heyday of "Soviet" pedology. At this time, pedological methods are being introduced into the practice of pedagogical work, the school is replenished with pedological personnel, the program of the People's Commissariat for Education on pedology is being developed, and cadres of pedologists are being trained in pediatrics. But in the same period, more and more pressure is placed on the biological research of the child, because from here comes the danger for "revolutionary pedological optimism", for the dominant ideology.

The 1930s became the years of dramatic events in pedology. A period of confrontation of currents began, which led to the final sociologization of pedology. The discussion flared up again about what kind of pedology our state needs, whose methodology is more revolutionary and Marxist. Despite the persecution, the representatives of the “biologising” (this included those pedologists who defended Meiman's understanding of pedology and its independence) did not want to give up their positions. If the supporters of the dominant sociologization trend lacked scientific arguments, then other methods were used: the opponent was declared unreliable. So E.A. turned out to be a “militant minority and a Machist”. Arkin, "idealist" - N.M. Shchelovanov, "reactionary" - the school of V.M. Bekhterev.

“On the one hand, we are seeing the same old academicism with problems and research methods torn off from today. On the other hand, we are faced with a serene calm that has not yet been outlived by the most acute problems of pedology... With such indifference to the introduction of the Marxist method into pedology, we are not surprised by the indifference of the same departments and groups to socialist construction: a real "synthesis" of theory and practices, but the synthesis is negative, i.e. deeply hostile to the proletarian revolution.

From January 25 to February 2, 1930, the All-Union Congress for the Study of Man was held in Leningrad, which also became a platform for a lively discussion in pedology and corresponding applause. The congress “went into battle with the authoritarianism of the former philosophical leadership, autogenetism, directly directed against the pace of socialist construction; the congress struck painfully at the idealistic conceptions of personality, which are always an apology for bare individualism; the congress rejected the idealistic and biologizing-mechanical approaches to the collective, revealing its class content and its powerful stimulating role under socialism; The congress demanded a radical restructuring of the methods of studying man on the basis of dialectical-materialist principles and on the basis of the requirements of the practice of social construction” 48 . And if at the First Pedological Congress there were still scientific contradictions in progress, then here everything already acquires a political coloring and scientific opponents turn out to be enemies of the proletarian revolution. The witch hunt has begun. In fact, at this congress, the reactological school (K.N. Kornilova) was crushed, since “the whole theory and practice of reactology cries out about its imperialist general methodological claims” and along the way “ultra-reflexological distortions of V.M. Bekhterev and his school”, and the entire direction was declared reactionary.

In the journal "Pedology" appeared in 1931 a new column - "Tribune", set aside specifically for exposing the "internal" enemies in pedology. Many swore allegiance to the regime, "realized" their "guilt" and repented. Materials are published with a "radical revision of the pre-Soviet age standards" of childhood from the point of view of their much greater capacity and their qualitatively different content in the children of the working masses in comparison with what our enemies wanted to recognize. There was a revision of the problem of "giftedness" and "difficult childhood" along the lines of "the greatest creative wealth that our new system opens up for the worker-peasant children." The methods of pedological research were attacked, especially the test method, the laboratory experiment. Blows were also dealt to "prostitution" in the field of pedological statistics. A number of most serious attacks were made on the "individualism" of pre-Soviet pedology. Quite eloquently, through the magazine "Pedology" a parade of targets for harassment was held, and everyone (and "targets" too) was invited to participate in the "hunt". However, the editors of the journal did not take credit for the organization of persecution: “The political core of pedological discussions is in no way a special advantage, a “super-merit” of pedology itself: here it reflects only the stubborn pressure of the class pedological order, which in essence is always directly political, acutely party order" 48 . Analyzing further the situation in pedology, A.B. Salkind calls everyone to "repentance"... Differentiation within the pedological camp requires, in the first place, an analysis of my personal perversions... However, this does not relieve us of the need to decipher the perversions in the works of our other leaders in pedological work... and our journal should immediately become the organizer and collector of this material. At the review of the pedagogical and psychological departments of the Academy of Communist Education P.P. Blonsky stated the idealistic and mechanistic roots of his mistakes. Unfortunately, Comrade Blonsky has not yet given a concrete analysis of these errors in their objective roots, in their development and in their real material, and we are urgently awaiting his corresponding speech in our journal. We invite comrades to help P.P. Blonsky articles, requests. "Comrades" were not slow to respond: in the next issue of the magazine an article about the mistakes of A.M. Blonsky is published. Gelmont "For Marxist-Leninist pedology" 49 ,

The journal Pedology demanded "repentance" or, more often, blasphemous denunciations of "insufficiently dedicated scientists." They demanded "help from the comrades" in relation to K.N. Kornilov, S.S. Molozhavy, A.S. Zaluzhny, M.Ya. Basov, I.A. Sokolyansky, N.M. Shchelovanov. They demanded the "disarmament" of the outstanding teacher and psychologist L.S. Vygotsky, as well as A.V. Luria and others

And these "criticism" and "self-criticism" were published not only in the journal "Pedology" itself, but also in social and political journals, especially in the journal "Under the Banner of Marxism" 21,50,51.

On the other hand, bullying in the form of "scientific criticism" has become not only a way of one's scientific understanding, but also an opportunity to prove one's loyalty to the regime. That is why so many "devastating" articles appear at this time, in almost all scientific journals, not to mention socio-political ones. What such “criticism” was like can be demonstrated by the example of M.Ya. Basov, whose persecution ended in a tragic denouement. In the journal "Pedology" No. 3 for 1931, an article by M.P. Feofanov "Methodological foundations of the Basov school" 52 , which the author himself summarizes in the following provisions: 1) the considered works of M.Ya. Basov can by no means be regarded as meeting the requirements of Marxist methodology; 2) in their methodological guidelines they are an eclectic tangle of biologism, mechanistic elements and Marxist phraseology; 3) the main work of M.Ya. Basov's “General Foundations of Pedology” is such a work that, as an educational guide for students, can only bring harm, since it gives a completely wrong orientation both to research scientific work on the study of children and adults, as well as to the education of a person’s personality; its harmfulness is further enhanced by the fact that Marxist phraseology obscures the harmful aspects of the book; 4) the concept of the human personality, according to the teachings of M.Ya. Basov, is completely inconsistent with all the meaning, spirit and attitudes towards the understanding of a historical personality, a social class person, which is developed in the works of the founders of Marxism; it is essentially reactionary.

These conclusions are made on the basis of the encyclopedic nature of the work of M.Ya. Basov in the field of pedology and references in this work to the most prominent psychologists and pedologists in the world who had the "misfortune" to be born outside the USSR - and were not spokesmen for the ideology of the victorious proletariat. This and similar criticisms led to a corresponding administrative reaction from the leadership of the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen, where M.Ya. bass.

M.Ya. Basov had to write a response article, but it was already published ... posthumously. A few months before the death of M.Ya. Basov leaves the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute (hardly on his own initiative), where he headed the pedological work. He leaves to "realize his mistakes" at the machine, as a simple worker, and absurdly dies from blood poisoning. On October 8, 1931, the corresponding obituary was placed in the newspaper of the institute “For the Bolshevik Pedkadry” and M.Ya. Basov:

“To students, graduate students, professors and teachers of the pedological department and to my Employees. Dear comrades!

An absurd accident, complicated by the difficulties of mastering the production of our brother, pulled me out of your ranks. Of course, I regret this, because I could still work as it is necessary for our great socialist country. Remember that any loss in the ranks is compensated by an increase in the energy of those who remain. Forward to Marxist-Leninist pedology - the science of the laws governing the development of socialist man at our historical stage.

M.Ya. Basov" 53 .

He was 39 years old.

The letter of I.V. Stalin "On some questions of the history of Bolshevism" in the journal "Proletarian Revolution". In response to this message, which called for an end to "rotten liberalism" in science, all scientific institutions underwent an ideological purge of cadres. On the example of LGPI them. A.I. Herzen can be illustrated how it took place: in the newspaper “For the Bolshevik Pedkadry” dated January 19, 1932, in the section “Struggle for the party spirit of science”, it was printed: “Comrade Stalin’s letter mobilized to increase vigilance, to fight against rotten liberalism. In the order of deployment, the works were opened and exposed [there is a listing by department] ... at the pedological department: Bogdanovism, subjective idealism in the works of the psychologist Marlin and eclecticism, Menshevik idealism in the works of the pedologist Shardakov.

The purge also affected the leading pedological cadres. The leadership of the central press organ - the journal "Pedology" - has changed. A.B. Zalkind, despite all his ardor of self-flagellation and flagellation of others, was removed from the post of executive editor: his “mistakes” in the first works on sexual education were too serious, which he subsequently edited many times opportunistically, and later practically abandoned them, switching to purely organizational work. However, he turned out to be unsuitable for the edifice he erected with such stubbornness, although subsequently, right up to the very destruction of pedology, he would still remain at the helm of pedology. Not only the editorial board of the journal is changing, but also the direction of work. Pedology becomes an “applied pedagogical science” and since 1932 has been defined as “a social science that studies the patterns of age development of a child and adolescent based on the leading role of the patterns of the class struggle and socialist construction of the USSR.” However, the practical benefit of pedology for education, where the work of pedologists was professionally and competently set up, was obvious and determined the support of pedology from the People's Commissariat of Education. In 1933, a resolution was issued by the collegium of the People's Commissariat of Education of the RSFSR for pedological work, which determined the directions of work and methods. N.K. participated in the development of this resolution. Krupskaya and P.P. Blonsky 3 .

The result of this decision was the widespread introduction of pedology into the school, the slogan appeared: "To every school - a pedologist", which to some extent resembles the modern trend of psychologization of education. The opening of new schools specialized for certain groups of students was subsidized, including an increase in the number of schools for mentally retarded and handicapped children. The practice of pedological examination, the distribution of children into classes and schools in accordance with their actual and mental age, which often does not coincide with the passport, as well as the not always high-quality work of practicing pedologists due to their low qualifications, often caused dissatisfaction with parents and teachers in the field. This dissatisfaction was reinforced by the ideological indoctrination of the population. The differentiation of the school into a regular school and for different categories of children with mental retardation "violated" the ideology of equality and averageness of the Soviet people, which often reached the point of absurdity in its premises: assertions that a child of the most advanced and revolutionary class should be worthy of his position, be advanced and revolutionary both in the field of physical and mental development due to the transformative impact of the revolutionary environment and the extreme lability of the organism; the laws of heredity were violated, the negative influence of the environment in a socialist society was rejected. From these provisions it followed that a child cannot be mentally and physically retarded, and therefore pedological examinations and the opening of new schools for mentally retarded and handicapped children were considered inappropriate; moreover, they are a provocation on the part of bourgeois-minded, unreconstructed pedologists and the People's Commissariat for Education who have taken them under their wing.

In this regard, in "Pravda" and other media there are calls to stop such provocations, to protect Soviet children from fanatical pedologists. Within pedology itself, the campaign for the restructuring of pedology into a truly Marxist science continues. To criticism in the media and from some leaders of the People's Commissariat of Education, calling for a ban on pedology or returning it to the bosom of the psychology that gave birth to it, detailed answers are given explaining the goals and results of the work, its necessity. One gets the impression that the devastating decision of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks came as a complete surprise to many teachers and pedologists. This suggests that the prohibition of pedology should be sought not only in its content, but also in a certain political game of the "tops". On the tip of the "bayonet" was N.K. Krupskaya.

A report on the implementation of this resolution was probably submitted to the Central Committee. Thus ended the brief history of pedology in the USSR. The baby is sacrificed to politics. The defeat of good undertakings is a “small” political action directed against N.K. Krupskaya, N.I. Bukharin, A.V. Lunacharsky, V.M. Bekhterev, who actively supported Nadezhda Konstantinovna.

There are also purely internal reasons for this. First of all, the lack of unity in understanding the essence of science: not the distribution of ideas to take away, but their eclectic introduction from other areas of knowledge and even from areas of deep ignorance. True synthesis in thought, as illustrated, has not taken place. Pedagogical dominant, later unjustified sociologization concealed the main roots of pedology.

The only correct way, in our opinion, would be a path based on the creation of a doctrine of human individuality, on the genetic predetermination of individuality, on understanding how, as a result of the wide possibilities of combinatorics of genes, a personality typology is formed in the interaction "genotype - environment". Deep insight into the concept reaction rate genotype could grow deep and solid science of man. Could have already then, in the 20-30s. receive normal scientific development and the practice of pedagogical activity, which to this day remains more of an art.

It is possible that society has not matured to understand the goals of science, as it happened more than once, as it happened in its time with the discovery of G. Mendel. However, this is due to the fact that the level of banal genetic thinking was inaccessible to a wide range of pedologists, psychologists and teachers, as, by the way, at the present time, although there were first contacts. Thus, M.Ya. A.I. Herzen, invited the famous scientist Yu.I. Polyansky to read the corresponding course. Meanwhile, on the one hand, it was a course in general genetics, but a course in human genetics was needed; on the other hand, it was a one-time event. You can take a course in genetics, but not absorb its essence, which happened to M.Ya. Basov. There was no textbook on human genetics at that time. Somewhat earlier (this is the task of a special and very important essay), the science of eugenics went out, and then genetics itself; the dramatic consequences of this in the country are still being felt.

The formula “We cannot expect favors from nature! Taking them is our task!” And they take, take, take ... ignorantly and cruelly, destroying not only nature itself, but also the intellectual potential of the Fatherland. They took it, but did not claim it. And did this potential survive after all the selective processes? We are optimistic - yes! Even with today's outlandish pressure of ecological bungling, it is worth relying on the limitless possibilities of hereditary variability. Having applied various methods of early psychodiagnostics of individual characteristics of a person, which turned out to be well developed in the West, it is worth thinking about how to demand from each person the maximum possible that he can give to society. Only now, perhaps, it is not worth calling these thoughts pedology, this has already been experienced.

Notes

1. Rumyantsev N.E. Pedology. SPb., 1910. P.82.
2. Herbart I. Psychology / Per. A.P. Nechaeva. SPb., 1895. 270 p.
3. Blonsky P.P.
4. Mayman E. Essay on experimental pedagogy. M., 1916. 34 p.
5. Thorndike E. Principles of teaching based on psychology / Per. from English. E.V. Ger'e; intro. Art. L.S. Vygotsky. M., 1926. 235 p.
6. Hall St. Collection of articles on pedology and pedagogy. M., 1912. 10 p.
7. Engineers X. Introduction to psychology. L., 1925. 171 p.
8. Blonsky P.P.
9. Gundobin N.P. Peculiarities of childhood. SPb., 1906. 344 p.
10. Basov M.Ya. General foundations of pedology. M.; L., 1928. 744 p.
11. Youthful S.S. The science of the child in its principles and methods // Pedology. 1928. No. 1. S.27-39.
12. Youthful S.S.. About the program for the study of the child // Education in transport. 1925. No. 11. S.27-30.
13. Shapiro Ya.I. Basic issues of pedology // Vestn. enlightenment. 1927. No. 5. S.82-88; No. 6. S.67-72; No. 7. pp.65-76.
14. Kirkpatrick E. Fundamentals of pedology. M., 1925. 301 p.
15. Gellerstein S.G. Psychotechnical foundations of teaching labor at the first stage school // On the way to a new school. 1926. No. 7-8. pp.84-98.
16. Basov M.Ya. Methods of psychological observation of children. L., 1924. 338 p.
17. Boltunov A.P. Measuring rock of the mind for subclass tests of schoolchildren: From the psychological laboratory of the Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen. L., 1928. 79 p.
18. Guryanov E.V. Accounting for school success: School tests and standards. M., 1926. 158 p.
19. Buchholz N.A., Schubert A.M.. Tests of mental giftedness and school success: Massive American tests. M., 1926. 88 p.
20. Zalkind A.B. On the issue of revising pedology // Vestn. enlightenment. 1925. No. 4. S.35-69.
21. Zaluzhny A.S. Children's team and methods of its study. M.; L., 1931. 145 p.
22. Zaluzhny A.S. For the Marxist-Leninist formulation of the problem of the collective // ​​Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.44-51
23. Blonsky P.P. Pedology: A Textbook for Higher Pedagogical Educational Institutions. M., 1934. 338 p.
24. Arkin E.A. Preschool age. 2nd ed. M., 1927. 467 p.
25. Aryamov I.Ya. 10 years of Soviet pedology: Report at the ceremonial meeting of the Research Institute of Scientific Pedagogics at the First Moscow State University, dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution // Vestn. enlightenment. 1927. No. 12. pp.68-73.
26. Zalkind A.B. Differentiation on the pedological front // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.7-14.
27. Nechaev A.P. Experimental psychology in its relation to school education. St. Petersburg. 1901. 236 p.
28. Neurology, neuropathology, psychology, psychiatry: Sat., dedicated. 40th anniversary of scientific, medical and pedagogical activity of prof. G.I.Rosselimo. M., 1925.
29. Osipova V.N. School of V.M. Bekhterev and pedology // Pedology. 1928. No. 1. pp.10-26.
30. Bekhterev V.M. On the public education of young children // Revolution and Culture. 1927. No. 1. pp.39-41.
31. Troshin G. Comparative psychology of normal and abnormal children. M., 1915.
32. Lazursky A.F. natural experiment. Pg., 1918.
33. Basov M.Ya. Experience of methods of psychological observations. Pg., 1923. 234 p.
34. Aryamov I.A. Reflexology of childhood: The development of the human body and the characteristics of different ages. M., 1926. 117 p.
35. Blonsky P.P. Pedology. M., 1925. 318 p.
36. Blonsky P.P. Pedology in the mass school of the first stage. M., 1925. 100 p.
37. Youthful S.S. A program for studying the behavior of a child or a children's team. M., 1924. 6 p.
38. Arkin E.A. Brain and soul. M.; L., 1928. 136 p.
39. Zalkind A.B. Revision of the pedology of school age: Report at the III All-Russian Congress on Preschool Education // Worker of Education. 1923. No. 2.
40. Nevertheless, A.B. Zalkind wrote earlier: “Of course, by passing on educated traits by inheritance, since it is impossible to seriously change the properties of an organism in one generation ...”.
41. Shchelovanov N.M. On the issue of raising children in a nursery // Vopr. motherhood and infancy. 1935. No. 2. pp.7-11.
42. Shtefko V.G., Serebrovskaya M.V., Shugaev B.C. Materials on the physical development of children and adolescents. M., 1925. 49 p.
43. Fortunatov G.A. Pedological work in preschool institutions // Education in transport. 1923. No. 9-10. S.5-8.
44. Bukharin N.I. From speeches at the 1st pedological congress // On the way to a new school. 1928. No. 1. S.3-10.
45. Krupskaya N.K. From speeches at the 1st pedological congress // On the way to a new school. 1928. No. 1. S.3-10. It should be noted that these statements by N.K. Krupskaya were not included in the “complete” collections of her works.
46. Lunacharsky A.V. Materials of the I All-Union Pedological Congress. M., 1928.
47. Zalkind A.B. On the position on the pedological front // Pedology. 1931. No. 1. S.1-2.
48. Gelmont A.M. For Marxist-Leninist pedology // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.63-66.
49. Leventuev P. Political perversions in pedology // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.63-66.
50. Stanevich P. Against excessive enthusiasm for the method of variational statistics and its incorrect application in anthropometry and psychometry // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.67-69.
51. Feofanov M.P. Methodological foundations of the Basov school // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. pp.21-34.
52. [Obituary to M.Ya.Basov] // For the Bolshevik pedkadry. 1931. 3 Oct.
53. [Editorial] // True. 1934. 14 Aug.
54. Feofanov M.P. The Theory of Cultural Development in Pedology as an Eclectic Concept with Mainly Idealistic Roots // Pedology. 1932. No. 1-2. pp.21-34.
55. Babushkin A.P. Eclecticism and reactionary slander on the Soviet child and teenager // Pedology. 1932. No. 1-2. pp.35-41.

Pedology is a science that combines the approaches of medicine, biology, pedagogy and psychotechnics to the development of a child. And although as a term it has become outdated and acquired the format of child psychology, universal pedological methods attract the attention of not only scientists, but also people outside the scientific world.

Story

The history of pedology begins in the West at the end of the 19th century. Its emergence was largely facilitated by the intensive development of applied branches of experimental pedagogy and psychology. The unification of their approaches with anatomical-physiological and biological ones in pedology happened mechanically. More precisely, it was dictated by a comprehensive, comprehensive study of children and their behavior.

The term "pedology" was introduced by the American research scientist Oscar Crisman in 1853. Translated from Greek, the definition sounds like "the science of children" (pedos - child, logos - science, study).

origins

The first works on pedology were written by American psychologists G.S. Hall, J. Baldwin and physiologist W. Preyer. It was they who stood at the origins and collected a huge amount of empirical material on the development and behavior of children. Their work became in many ways revolutionary and formed the basis of children's and

In Russia

At the beginning of the 20th century, a new scientific trend penetrated Russia (then the USSR) and received a worthy continuation in the works of the psychiatrist and reflexologist V.M. Bekhterev, psychologist A.P. Nechaev, physiologist E. Meyman and defectologist G.I. Rossolimo. Each of them, by virtue of his specialty, tried to explain and formulate the laws of child development and methods for its correction.

Pedology in Russia gained practical scope: pedological institutes and the "House of the Child" (Moscow) were opened, a number of specialized courses were held. Psychological tests were conducted in schools, the results of which were used to complete classes. Leading psychologists, physiologists, doctors and teachers of the country were involved in the study of child psychology. All this was done with the aim of a comprehensive study of child development. However, such a simple task did not quite justify the means.

By the 1920s, pedology in Russia was an extensive scientific movement, but not a complex science. The main obstacle to the synthesis of knowledge about the child was the lack of a preliminary analysis of the methods of the sciences that make up this complex.

Mistakes

The main mistakes of Soviet pedologists were considered to be the underestimation of the role of hereditary factors in the development of children and the influence on the formation of their personalities. In practical terms, scientific miscalculations can be attributed to the flaw and application of tests for intellectual development.

In the 1930s, all the shortcomings were gradually corrected, and Soviet pedology began a more confident and meaningful path. However, already in 1936 it became "pseudo-science", objectionable to the political system of the country. Revolutionary experiments were curtailed, pedological laboratories were closed. Testing, as the main pedological method, has become vulnerable in educational practice. Since, according to the results, the most often gifted were the children of priests, the White Guards and the "rotten" intelligentsia, and not the proletariat. And this went against the ideology of the party. So the upbringing of children returned to traditional forms, which caused stagnation in the educational system.

Principles of pedology

The development of pedology in Russia has brought certain results, it has formed the basic scientific principles:

• Pedology is a holistic knowledge about the child. From this position, it is considered not “in parts”, but as a whole, as a creation simultaneously biological, social, psychological, etc. All aspects of its study are interconnected and intertwined. But this is not just a random collection of data, but a clear compilation of theoretical settings and methods.
• The second reference point of pedologists was the genetic principle. He was actively studied by a psychologist. Using the example of a child’s egocentric speech (“speech minus sound”), he proved that baby talk or “mumbling under his breath” is the first stage of a person’s inner speech or thinking. The genetic principle demonstrates the prevalence of this phenomenon.
• The third principle - the study of childhood - proved that the social environment and life significantly affect the psychological and anthropomorphic development of the child. So, neglect or rigidity of upbringing, malnutrition affect the mental and physiological health of the child.
• The fourth principle lies in the practical significance of pedology - the transition from knowing the child's world to changing it. In this regard, pedological counseling, conversations with parents and children were created.

Pedology is a complex science, therefore its principles are based on a comprehensive study of the child. Psychology and pedology have long been identified with each other, the second concept came out of the first. Therefore, the psychological aspect is still dominant in pedology.

Since the 1950s, the ideas of pedology began to partially return to pedagogy and psychology. And 20 years later, active educational work began using tests for the intellectual development of children.

The development of human sciences caused in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. the emergence in Europe and America of new experimental methods for studying the child - "child study", later called the term pedology (translated from Greek - "the science of children"), under which it spread in Russia. A deep analysis of the development of pedology in Russia was made by a modern researcher E.G. Ilyashenko, on the basis of his works, the material of this paragraph is presented.

A number of researchers associate the beginning of pedology with the name of the German doctor D. Tiedemann, who in 1787 published the essay “Observation on the Development of Mental Abilities in Children”. However, the work of the German physiologist G. Preyer "The Soul of a Child" (1882) is considered the beginning of a systematic study of children. If researchers in the history of pedology call Preyer “the ideological inspirer of the pedological movement,” then the creator of this movement, the founder of pedology, is considered the American psychologist S. Hall, who in 1889 created the first pedological laboratory, which grew into the Institute of Child Psychology. Thanks to Hall, by 1894 there were 27 laboratories for the study of children and four specialized journals in America. He organized annual summer courses for teachers and parents.

The term "pedology" itself appeared in 1893. It was proposed by Hall's student O. Hrisman to designate a single science that summarizes the knowledge of all other sciences about children. Pedology was designed to combine a variety of data about the child, accumulated by psychologists, physiologists, doctors, sociologists, lawyers, teachers, and give a more complete picture of the age development of the child. Exploring the history of the emergence of pedology, the historian of pedagogy F.A. Fradkin wrote that the new century demanded fundamentally new human qualities. In order to prepare a healthy, creative, intellectually developed person, capable of coping with enormous psychological and physical overloads, it was necessary to gain new knowledge about a person and how to prepare him for life. Separate sciences - medicine, psychology, physiology, pediatrics, sociology, ethnography, etc. - approached the child from their own positions. Fragments of knowledge that were not synthesized into a single whole were difficult to use in educational work. Therefore, the creation of a new science - pedology, which studies the child holistically at different age stages, was met with enthusiasm.

Within the framework of pedology, the physiological features of the development of children, the formation of their psyche, the features of the emergence and development of the child's personality began to be studied. Pedological studies were the prerequisites for the creation of the anthropological foundation of pedagogy.

Spreading in America, the pedological movement came to Europe, where it went deep, setting itself the task of "development of the scientific foundations of pedagogy", engaging in the development of methods for studying children's nature.

Along with the term "pedology" were used as equivalent definitions: the psychology of childhood, pedagogical psychology, experimental pedagogy, hygiene education and others, reflecting the specifics of the chosen area of ​​research. Having put forward the task of studying the nature of the child, they began to widely use the experiment and the method of systematic observation in the study of the processes of mental life - experimental pedagogy. At the beginning of the century, the terms pedology, experimental pedagogy, experimental pedagogical psychology, psychological pedology were mostly understood as synonyms.

In Russia, pedology lay on prepared soil. Ushinsky's ideas about the need for a comprehensive study of an educated person were reflected and continued in pedological research. It can be considered that in Russia pedology made an attempt to solve the problems of pedagogical anthropology.

The first pedological research in our country was carried out at the beginning of the 20th century. NOT. Rumyantsev, I.A. Sikorsky, G.I. Rossolimo, A.F. Lazursky, V.P. Kashchenko. But the founder of Russian pedology is considered to be Professor Alexander Petrovich Nechaev (1870-1948). In 1901, in St. Petersburg, Nechaev created the first in Russia laboratory of experimental pedagogical psychology, where the peculiarities of the psyche of children of different ages were studied. In 1904, pedagogical courses were opened at this laboratory, where students got acquainted with the basics of anatomy, physiology, pediatrics, child psychology, and mastered the technique of conducting psychological research. In the same year, a pedological laboratory named after K.D. Ushinsky, who was considered "the first Russian pedologist". Students who attended courses at the museum studied the child as a subject of education, gained knowledge about the functioning of the brain, about the characterological qualities of a person, studied statistics, psychology, the history of pedology and pedagogy, i.e. studied the foundations of the sciences, which Ushinsky called anthropological.

Similar courses were organized in Moscow, Nizhny Novgorod, Samara. In 1907, Nechaev transformed the permanent pedological courses into the Pedagogical Academy, where people with higher education studied physiology, psychology, pedagogy, and learned the methods of teaching many disciplines. In the same year, doctor and psychologist V.M. Bekhterev organized Pedological and Psychoneurological Institutes in St. Petersburg.

All this testified to the acceptance by the public consciousness of the ideas of Ushinsky's pedagogical anthropology about the importance of knowledge about the basic patterns of formation and development of the child's body and psyche for successful pedagogical activity, the need for holistic ideas about a person for education and training.

The expansion of the pedological movement in Russia is also evidenced by the fact that in 10 years (1906-1916) two All-Russian Congresses on Pedagogical Psychology (1906, 1909) and three All-Russian Congresses on Experimental Pedagogy (1910, 1913, 1916) were held, the main merit in organizations which belongs to Nechaev. At three subsequent psychological congresses, called congresses of experimental pedagogy, issues of experimental research into personality, pedagogical problems, school hygiene, and methods of teaching individual academic subjects in their relation to psychology were discussed. As a result of the work of the congresses, a holistic study of the personality, and not just separate individual functions, was already put at the forefront.

A.P. Nechaev called for the release of the school "from the deadly chains of pedagogical methods that are not based on an accurate knowledge of the child's nature," since only under the condition of full and comprehensive knowledge of the personality of the pupil, it is possible to direct and educate it. In the work “Modern Experimental Psychology in its Relation to School Education”, Nechaev wanted to bring experimental psychology and pedagogy together, to connect the data of experimental psychology with the most important provisions of modern didactics, to clarify the importance of the methods of experimental psychological research for the successful development of didactics.

For the whole world the first decade of the XX century. was the time of expansion and organizational design of the international pedological movement. Most of the representatives of the first generation of pedologists in Russia were doctors. They were attracted primarily by "exceptional children", gifted, defective, educationally difficult children. A significant phenomenon among the studies of such problems was the two-volume work Anthropological Foundations of Education. Comparative psychology of normal and abnormal children” G.Ya. Troshin, in which "the anthropological foundations of education are studied ... on the comparative psychology of normal and abnormal children", which at that time was a completely new way of studying the problems of children. Troshin speaks out against the indifferent attitude towards unsuccessful children, which, in his opinion, has become stronger in Russian pedagogy. He writes that in essence there is no difference between normal and abnormal children: both are people, both are children, both develop according to the same laws, and the difference lies only in the method of development. In his opinion, children's abnormality is in the vast majority of cases the product of abnormal social conditions, and the degree of participation in abnormal children is one of the indicators of social well-being.

Focusing on the rapidly developing natural sciences at that time, pedology initially concentrated research problems around the psychophysiological features of the development of a growing personality, paying little attention to the social and sociocultural problems of a person as a subject of education. Over time, it was the psychological side of research that began to come to the fore, and gradually pedology began to acquire a pronounced psychological orientation. Pedagogical questions were no longer an accidental conclusion from the psychological studies of childhood, but a starting point for them.

But the development of pedology went along a somewhat different line than Ushinsky assumed when he formulated his ideal of pedagogical anthropology. He interpreted pedagogical anthropology as a science that, based on the synthesis of scientific knowledge about a person, will determine a new approach to his education from the side of internal laws of development, i.e. he saw pedagogical anthropology as a link between pedagogy and other sciences that study man. Pedology, however, concentrating on the study of the child, and to a greater extent of his psychophysiology, did not reach the level of studying a person in relation to his upbringing.

In 1921, the Central Pedological Institute was opened in Moscow, which existed until 1936, the task of which was the systematic and organized study of the child from the standpoint of psychology, anthropology, medicine and pedagogy in order to properly influence his development and upbringing. Since 1923, the Pedological Journal began to appear, published by the Oryol Pedological Society under the editorship of the famous pedologist M.Ya. Basov.

The studies of doctors, psychologists, and physiologists involved in pedology, begun before the revolution, continued. Developing the problem of an individual approach to educating a personality in a clinic for difficult children, the doctor Vsevolod Petrovich Kashchenko (1870-1943) already then predetermined the theory and practice of humanistic pedagogy and psychotherapy. Alexander Fedorovich Lazursky (1874-1917) sought to create a typology of personalities to develop on its basis the pedagogical aspects of the interaction between a teacher and a student.

However, the attitude towards this group of pedologists has changed. They began to be criticized for studying the child outside the context of environmental factors, they were required to have a class approach, to prove that the “proletarian child” is better and higher than children from other social groups, they were accused of functionalism.

The position opposite to that of psychologists was occupied by reflexologists - I.A. Aryamov, A.A. Dernova-Yarmolenko, Yu.P. Frolov. They considered the child as a machine, an automaton that reacts to stimuli from the external environment, they considered mental activity in connection with nervous processes.

On the one hand, reflexology attracted with its natural scientific basis and pronounced materialistic attitudes, but, on the other hand, according to the famous psychologist and teacher P.P. Blonsky, her mechanistic materialism reduced the study of such complex phenomena of human life as labor, political activity or scientific research, only to reflexes. This approach inspired a view of the child as a passive being, ignoring his activity.

Blonsky himself consistently developed the biogenetic concept of the development of the child, arguing that the child in his ontological development repeats all the main stages of biological evolution and the stages of the cultural and historical development of mankind. So, biogenetics believed that infancy and early childhood correspond to the phase of primitive society. The harmony of the physical and mental development of a child of 9-10 years old, his militancy and pugnacity represent a reproduction in special forms of the phase of development of human society, reminiscent of the life of a Greek metropolis, and the alienation and gloom of a teenager is an echo of medieval relations between people, youthful maximalism and individualism are features of people New time. But supporters of biologism did not take into account historical experience, which testified that not all peoples go through the phases of development identified by biogenetics and that in different cultures the age characteristics of children manifest themselves differently. In addition, the idea of ​​biogenetics came into conflict with political and ideological guidelines - to lead peoples to socialism, bypassing the historically established stages of the development of society.

Sociogenetics - S.S. Youthful, A.S. Zaluzhny, A.B. Zalkind - focused on the determining role of external factors in the upbringing and formation of personality. They exaggerated the role of the environment in the upbringing of the individual, thereby belittling the role of upbringing in the process of the formation of the child. This exaggeration made it possible to justify pedagogical failures by referring to objective conditions, to underestimate the age and individual characteristics of children. In addition, the exaggeration of the role of the environment in education denied pedology as a science, making it unnecessary to study the process of child development, taking into account all internal and external factors.

In the 1920-1930s. pedology in Russia developed actively: studies of various age periods of children were carried out (P.P. Blonsky, L.S. Vygotsky, M.M. Rubinshtein, N.A. Rybnikov, A.A. Smirnov), studies of higher nervous activity in children (N.I. Krasnogorsky); the cognitive processes of the child were studied; the interests and needs of children were identified, including in children's groups (P.L. Zagorovsky, A.S. Zaluzhny, N.M. Shchelovanov). M.Ya. Basov and A.P. Boltunov developed methods of pedological research. Attempts were made to theoretically comprehend the data obtained in order to develop a general theory of child development (M.Ya. Basov, L.S. Vygotsky, A.B. Zalkind). And although at that time the name of the founder of pedagogical anthropology K.D. Ushinsky was practically not mentioned, the idea of ​​the need to study the child for his upbringing was continued in the works of Russian pedologists.

The first congress of pedologists (1928) was attended by N.K. Krupskaya and A.V. Lunacharsky, who in his report said "that "a small but strong enough pedologist should sit in the head of every teacher." He believed that the teacher needs pedological knowledge to make the life of children more joyful, more interesting, to develop their social instincts and abilities , and pedology should become the scientific basis of the educational and educational processes.

Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya (1869-1939) drew the attention of the congress participants to the importance of placing the child at the center of the pedagogical process. It is not the discipline itself, not the methods of working with children that should worry teachers in the first place, she believed, since the methods of education can contribute to the development of the child, and can also hinder the formation of his mental and physical strength. Pedology should give teachers a deep knowledge of the child, his desires, moods, motives and interests. The principle of “coming from the child”, in her opinion, should become the main principle of working with children, and here pedology can play a huge role.

Much attention at the congress was also paid to pedological tools - all kinds of tests, questionnaires, questionnaires, statistical methods aimed at measuring intelligence, emotional and behavioral reactions, the physical development of the child, his memory, imagination, attention, perception, attitude to the world. After this congress, the position of a pedologist who studied children was introduced in schools, and the journal Pedology began to be published.

In order to become an independent science, pedology had to define its subject, develop a methodology, find a place in the system of scientific knowledge. However, the subject of pedology was not clearly defined from the very beginning. The task was only set - to collect and systematize all the information related to the life and development of children, but the principle that unites this information was not found. And in this the fate of pedology is similar to the fate of pedagogical anthropology, which failed after the death of its founder K.D. Ushinsky to become a science with a clearly defined content and methodology.

Considering pedology as the science of child development, Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1896-1934) tried to substantiate the methodological basis of pedology. He deduced the laws of child development, considering it to be a process that proceeds cyclically in time, in which individual aspects of the child develop unevenly and disproportionately. Each side in the development of the child has its own optimal period of development.

Calling pedology the science of the age-related development of a child in a certain socio-historical environment, P.P. Blonsky believed that pedology should use the achievements of not only psychology, but also other sciences, synthesizing data about the child and analyzing them for the purpose of applying in the process of education.

Developing the methodology of pedology, Blonsky, paying tribute to the ideology of those years, refers to Lenin's formulation of the dialectical way of knowing the truth: from living contemplation to abstract thinking and from it to practice. He believes that the study of child development should begin with the observation of concrete facts of this development. But the observation must be scientific - expedient, consistent and systematic, aimed at solving some scientific problem. In those cases when it is necessary to get to know the experiences of the subject under study more deeply, Blonsky suggests using self-observation (introspection), enabling the subject under study to freely talk about his experiences, and then proceed to asking questions of interest to the researcher. Blonsky considers the use of certain memories of adults about their childhood as a peculiar form of application of self-observation in pedology. But the methods of observation, in his opinion, are imperfect. Blonsky also calls statistics an important method of pedology, which gives a quantitative description of mass phenomena.

The testing method has become widespread in pedological research. The test results were considered sufficient grounds for psychological diagnosis and prognosis. Gradually, the absolutization of this approach led to the discrediting of the test method for many years.

Mikhail Yakovlevich Basov (1892-1931) paid great attention to the popularization and introduction of the method of observation into pedagogical practice. In his work Methods of Psychological Observations on Children (1926), he proposes observation schemes and a method for analyzing empirical data obtained during observation in a natural experiment. Basov's research traces a connection with Ushinsky's ideas about the importance of knowing the laws of the society in which a person lives and develops.

In general, all pedologists agreed that the subject of study of pedology is the child. Pedology studies the child as an integral organism (A.A. Smirnov), as a whole (L.S. Vygotsky), its properties, patterns of development in its entirety and interconnection (P.P. Blonsky), basic conditions, laws, stages and types of biological and social development of a concrete historical child (G.S. Kostyuk). The possibility of such a study was seen in the integration of anatomical, physiological, psychological, social knowledge about the child. However, pedology never became such an integrative complex science of the child. Modern researchers of the history of pedology see the reason for this in the fact that all the sciences on which it was based were either still experiencing a new period of their formation (psychology, pedagogy, etc.), or were completely absent in our country (sociology, etc.) ; the integration of interdisciplinary links, in essence, has not yet begun.

The state of pedology was affected by ideological pressure, which intensified by the beginning of the 1930s, and the difficult atmosphere that developed in the scientific community. Blonsky wrote that “the pedologist proposes to replace pedagogy and psychology with his science, the teacher drowns pedology, and the psychologist claims to replace both pedology and pedagogy with his pedagogical psychology.” In addition, pedology was not ready for the practical use of its results, as the time required. There were not enough trained personnel.

According to modern researchers in the history of pedology, the decline of the pedological movement in Russia occurred already in 1931-1932. After 1932, the journal Pedology ceased to be published. It was finally banned on July 4, 1936 by a resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of the Soviet Union. (b) "On pedological perversions in the system of Narkompros". All pedological research was stopped, and the works of pedologists were withdrawn from use. As an academic discipline, it was excluded from the curricula of pedagogical institutes and pedagogical colleges, the departments of pedology, pedological classrooms and laboratories were liquidated. Textbooks by P.P. Blonsky "Pedology for Pedagogical Universities", A.A. Fortunatova, I.I. Sokolov "Pedology for Pedagogical Schools", etc., were removed from all libraries of the work of pedologists. Many scientists were repressed.

Among the repressed was Albert Petrovich Pinkevich (1883/4-1939) - a prominent scientist who made a worthy contribution to the development of domestic pedagogical science. In 1924-1925. his two-volume "Pedagogy" was published, in which education was seen as promoting the development of a person's innate properties. In the best textbook on pedagogy at that time, a large place was occupied by the presentation of information about the development of children of different ages. He was one of the first to draw attention to the close connection between pedagogy and the physiology of higher nervous activity, while noting the great importance of the works of I.P. Pavlov to develop a number of pedagogical problems.

Originating as a holistic science about a person being educated, trying to find a continuation in pedology, a new branch of knowledge - pedagogical anthropology - broke up into separate ones from each other: developmental psychology, developmental physiology, and pedagogical psychology. The main idea on which not only pedology, but also Ushinsky's pedagogical anthropology was based, disappeared - the idea of ​​a holistic study of man. Researchers began to be guided by the specific, limited task of studying one or another aspect of a child's life. However, the main achievement of pedology - the consolidation of an integrated approach to the study of the child as a methodological principle - is again becoming relevant in modern human knowledge.

test questions

1. What did pedology do? Why is it considered a scientific branch of pedagogical anthropology?

2. What strengths and weaknesses emerged in the process of establishing pedology as a scientific discipline?

I What were the reasons for the prohibition of pedology in 1936?

LITERATURE

1. Ananiev B.G. On the problems of modern human knowledge. M., 1977.

2. Berdyaev N.A. About the appointment of a person. M., 1993.

3. Bekhterev V.M. Problems of human development and education. M., 1997.

4.Bim-Bad B.M. Pedagogical anthropology. M., 2003.

5. Blonsky P.P. Pedology. M., 2000.

6. Boguslavsky M.V. The genesis of the humanistic paradigm of education in Russian pedagogy at the beginning of the 20th century. // Pedagogy. 2000. No. 4. S. 63-70.

7. Vakhterov V.P. Fundamentals of the new pedagogy // Izbr. ped. op. M., 1987.

8. Ventzel K.N. Free education. M., 1993.

9.Vygotsky L.S. Lectures on pedology. Izhevsk, 2001.

10.Hessen.S.I. Fundamentals of Pedagogy: An Introduction to Applied Philosophy. M., 1995. Mental life of children. Essays on educational psychology / Ed. A.F. Lazursky, A.P. Nechaev. M., 1910.

11. Zenkovssh VV Problems of education in the light of Christian anthropology. M., 1996.

12. Ilyashenko E.G. Domestic pedology in the context of the development of pedagogical anthropology (the first third of the 20th century) // Proceedings of the Department of Pedagogical Anthropology URAO. Issue. 17. 2002. S. 59-76.

13. Ilyashenko E.G. Development of anthropological and pedagogical ideas in Russia (the second half of the 19th - the first third of the 20th century) // Vestnik URAO. 2003. No. 3. S. 104-149.

14. Kant I. Anthropology from a pragmatic point of view. SPb., 1999.

15. Kapterev P.F. M., 2002. (Anthology of humane pedagogy).

16. Kornetov G.B. Humanistic education: traditions and perspectives. M., 1993.

17. Kulikov V.B. Pedagogical.anthropology. Sverdlovsk, 1988.

18. Lesgaft P.F. Anthropology and Pedagogy / / Chosen. ped. op. M., 1988. S. 366-376.

19. Makarenko A.S. Sobr. cit.: V 8 t. M., 1983.

20. Montessori M. The method of scientific pedagogy applied to children's education in children's homes. M., 1915.

21. Pirogov N.I. Questions of life // Selected. ped. op. M, 1985.

22. Romanov A.A. A.P. Nechaev. At the origins of experimental pedagogy. M., 1996.

23. Slobodchikov V.I., Isaev E.I. Fundamentals of Psychological Anthropology // Human Psychology: An Introduction to the Psychology of Subjectivity. M., 1995.

24. Sukhomlinsky V.A. M., 1998. (Anthology of humane pedagogy).

25. Ushinsky K.D. Man as an object of education. Experience of pedagogical anthropology // Pedagogical works: In 6 vols. T. 5, 6. M., 1989.

27. Fradkin F.A. Pedology: myths and reality. M., 1991.

28. Chernyshevsky N.G. Anthropological principle in philosophy. M., 1948.

29. Chistyakov V.V. Anthropological and methodological foundations of pedagogy. Yaroslavl, 1999.