The Constitution of the meaning of education and the cultural-semiotic environment ‒ mainstream revolution in modern pedagogy

Rozin Vadim Markovich Doctor of Philosophy Chief Scientific Associate, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences  109240, Russia, Moskovskaya oblast', g. Moscow, ul. Goncharnaya, 12 str.1, kab. 310 rozinvm@gmail.com Other publications by this author

A common place of awareness of the current situation in education is the recognition of the loss of meaning. "To paraphrase Baudrillard," writes G. V. Telegina, "who noted with sadness that "we live in a world in which there is more and more information, and less and less meaning," we can say that there are more and more "educational services" and fewer and fewer educated people in this world" ^{[12, p. 327]}. ""Meaninglessness" ? notes J. Knight, ? this is the most appropriate and accurate assessment that American education deserved in the twentieth century. Despite the fact that there was a lot of activity in the field of innovations and experiments, most of them did not receive proper understanding in terms of goals, intentions and real needs… Neil Postman and Charles Weingartner noted that the meaninglessness in education for a society that is traditionally more puzzled by the question of “how” than the question of “why” is a natural outcome...“Why do we give all this education and for what?” ? these are the two most important questions that we should ask ourselves. Meanwhile, in most cases they are not seriously considered" ^{[1, p. 13]}.

Before we talk about the meaning of education, let's focus on the question of meaning formation as such. It performs at least two functions: it allows you to understand a certain text or phenomenon (in fact, also considered as a text, statement, narrative) and realize yourself. I will give one example (case) ? a teenage memory of psychologist Carl Jung. One day on a beautiful summer day in 1887, admiring the universe, Jung thought: "The world is beautiful and the church is beautiful, and the God who created all this is sitting far away in the blue sky on a golden throne and... Here my thoughts stopped and I felt suffocated. I was numb and remembered only one thing: Not to think now! Something terrible is coming.

(After three hard days and sleepless nights from internal struggle and experiences, Jung still allowed himself to think out the idea he had started and such a seemingly harmless thought).

I gathered all my courage, as if I had suddenly decided to immediately jump into the hellfire, and gave the thought the opportunity to appear. I saw the cathedral in front of me, the blue sky. God sits on his golden throne, high above the world – and from under the throne a piece of feces falls on the sparkling new roof of the cathedral, breaks through it, everything collapses, the walls of the cathedral break into pieces.

That's it! I felt an unspeakable relief. Instead of the expected curse, grace descended on me, and with it an unspeakable bliss that I had never known... I understood many things that I did not understand before, I understood what my father did not understand – the will of God... My father accepted the biblical commandments as a guide, he believed in God, as the Bible prescribed and as his father taught him. But he did not know the living God, who stands, free and omnipotent, stands above the Bible and above the Church, who calls people to become equally free. God, for the sake of fulfilling His Will, can force the father to abandon all his views and beliefs. Testing human courage, God forces us to abandon traditions, no matter how sacred they may be" ^{[15, pp. 46, 50]}.

This story (narrative) can also be understood as an act of understanding ("I understood many things that I did not understand before, I understood what my father did not understand – the will of God"), the result of which was the discovery of a new meaning (God is not a traditional Supersubject, but a real Revolutionary?jin, who it can even destroy the church), and as a process of realizing Jung's personality, because the latter rather created this meaning, wanting to break with the father and the church.

"In this religion," Jung writes a few pages later, "I no longer found God. I knew that I would never be able to take part in this ceremony again. The church is a place where I won't go anymore. Everything is dead there, there is no life there. I felt sorry for my father. I realized the tragedy of his profession and life. He was struggling with death, the existence of which he could not admit. A chasm opened up between him and me, it was boundless, and I did not see the possibility of ever overcoming it" ^{[15, p. 64]}.

  One can ask the following question: what circumstances forced Jung to form a new meaning? It is not difficult to assume that this was, firstly, a misunderstanding of the fantasy that visited him (it looked like blasphemy, and Jung, as a believing teenager, rightly expected punishment from God), and secondly, he wanted to understand, if he had such a message, what it meant. He survived the fear in three days, but to explain the message, he had to create an interpretation. In accordance with my concept of "schemology", it can be quite understood as a "scheme" that allowed solving the problematic situation in which Jung was involved. This interpretation in the function of the scheme set a new reality (God as a Revolutionary and Jung as a follower of the sacred revolution), allowing Jung to break with the father and the church. One of the necessary conditions for entering a new reality is construction (objectification and deification) "new objectivity": That is, Jung had to place (by creating) a new object in his "life world" ? a Revolutionary God ^{[5, p. 60]}.

Generalizing, with the involvement of other cases, it can be argued that sense formation allows solving problematic situations by constructing narratives (schemes, metaphors, symbols, etc.) and a new objectivity; as a result, a new reality is created, as well as conditions for new activities. But these functions of meaning formation do not lie on the surface (they can be revealed only within the framework of a special reconstruction), a person (specialist) is aware of new meanings (as Jung writes, "I understood the will of God", it is this new meaning that he realizes and articulates in speech).

It is clear that in the field of education, not problematic situations, narratives, new subjects, realities and actions are realized, but the corresponding meanings. Our analysis shows that they were formed in the XIX and early XX centuries and belong to the "traditional paradigm of education" ^{[4; 10]}. However, at present, new problematic situations have crystallized, requiring new inventions and practices (new narratives) ^{[3; 7; 9; 10; 11]}. Let's briefly describe the new situation in the field of education.    

"Since the second half of the last century, it has become clear that society is not one and different types of socialization are allowed, in the context of which different types of individuals (personalities) are formed... In modern conditions, not all, but many students are forced to build their own way of life, including education, and therefore need help and pedagogical (tutor) support on this path <...> Today it is difficult to understand what really exists, how our world works, what laws it obeys. Social reality is interpreted in different ways, different rapidly changing trends are seen in it, often opposite, philosophy and science no longer provide unambiguous explanations of what is happening <...> The leading position of the teacher is not management and formation, but a position involving the support of the individual, stimulating and puzzling her, tips and help, organization of conditions and space for activity and creativity of the student, joint search for solutions, demonstration of their own position and work, willingness to discuss problems together with students and a number of other points that lie within the same reality" ^{[3, c. 6, 9, 37, 42]}.

So, a new cultural situation has developed, a different type of pedagogical relations is being formed, education is forced to take into account different trajectories of students' development, different types of personalities. But, as you know, new things are not born from scratch, old relationships continue to operate for a long time; somewhere they generally persist, adapting to innovations.

There are two answers to this situation: the concept of "personalization", which is characterized by a "psychological-anthropological approach", and the concept of "individualization" ("cultural-environmental approach") ^[9]. In the first concept, it is proposed to take into account the peculiarities of students' personality development, but as the author shows together with Tatiana Kovaleva, this answer does not solve the main problems ^[9]. In the second approach, we are talking about creating a complex environment that allows for different types of personalities and trajectories of their development, and at the same time contributes to the cultural evolution of students ^{[9; 10; 11]}. At the same time, the environment is understood not biologically, but socioculturally, semiotically and psychotechnically. Belarusian education researchers have come close to this understanding of the environment.

"In the traditional interpretation," they write, "the environment is described as a certain environment of an individual that has a certain effect on him. We believe that in the context of university culture-generating education, the environment should be understood as: a) an integral part of educational subjectivity (which, in turn, is part of the environment); b) the effect of implementing a certain educational practice (a condition of which it simultaneously acts)... The environment in this case is more a symbolic field than an object or subject field. It is born and functions where there is a communicative interaction of various meanings or ways of activity and as a result accumulates this diversity so that each of the participants in the environment is able to change their own position and their own vision of the situation... the educational environment is the area in which the transformation of the experience and identity of participants in education takes place... The environment is not predetermined and is not imposed from the outside on the subject or group. It acts as a product of joint construction within the framework of actual communication, and therefore it cannot be considered separately from the situations in which it is generated and the effects that it generates... In this case, the teacher does not disappear as a symbolic intermediary, but radically changes his function – from the formation of identity to the organization of environments ... The organizer of the environment is the one who manages the process of creating, producing the environment. Its main task is to make the educational environment appear and cause a number of effects that are not set in advance and therefore not expected ..." ^[14].

To ground these general provisions and make our own understanding of the environment more understandable, let's consider another case. "The author taught a course at the State Academic University for the Humanities"Introduction to Philosophy”, and within its framework, in particular, discussed with first-year students such a topic as sources of ideas and knowledge about reality. In this context, I suggested discussing what heat is, as a phenomenon and as knowledge.  At the same time, I realized that most students believe that a person gets knowledge about the world from a sensory reflection, they say, there is warmth and a person, watching him, gets knowledge about him. But two students, obviously imbued with the author's reasoning about the schemes, said that knowledge about heat is a convenient scheme that a person creates to understand what happens when bodies emit heat. Another student, probably influenced by Buddhism, said that there is no heat, it is an illusion, Maya, so knowledge about heat is a myth. Finally, there was a student who outlined his own theory of heat, stating that he was not used to using other people's knowledge, he had to find his own explanation.  

I realized that you need to work with each point of view separately. In the first group, I ask the students again: what is heat? Remembering school physics lessons, two students answer that heat is the energy of moving particles (molecules). This is “of course, correct," I agree, "but in the middle of the XVIII century, another theory prevailed ? caloric (weightless thermal fluid), which allowed calculating thermal phenomena. If you had asked an educated person of that time what heat was, he would have answered confidently ? caloric. However , in 1798 The English scientist Benjamin Thomson, observing the drilling of channels in gun barrels, was struck by the release of a large amount of heat in this process. He came up with such an experiment: a hole was drilled in a metal block placed under water using a blunt drill driven by the power of two horses; after about two and a half hours, the water boiled. “The amazement of others who saw that such a mass of water boils without fire was indescribable,” the scientist recalled. As a result, Thomson came to the conclusion that there is no hydrogen, and the cause of heat is motion” ^[13].

Is it possible to assume, I turned to the first group, that people in the future will discover such thermal phenomena (for example, in space or deep underground in magma) that will undermine the modern theory of heat. Drilling barrels falsified the theory of hydrogen, why is it impossible to repeat? I ask the students the following question: so what is heat really ? hydrogen, a form of energy, or something third, fourth, which we have not yet guessed.

The students are silent, but it is clear from their eyes that the work has started, they do not understand: there is heat in nature, but for some reason one time it is hydrogen, another is the energy of moving particles, the third is something else, and, it turns out, the structure of heat depends on a theoretical explanation. In this place I come to the rescue. I propose to distinguish, firstly, “things in themselves” according to Kant (heat as an objective phenomenon) and phenomena (heat, given in a particular scientific theory). Secondly, phenomena as socially engaged entities (a common, everyday understanding of heat) and phenomena constituted in certain practices (for example, the manufacture of guns). Thirdly, I suggest not to confuse the phenomenon of heat and schemes, as well as models with which thermal processes are described and calculated. In short, I bring students to the understanding that the sources of knowledge about the world and reality are not conditioned by sensory perception, but by practices, problems, and ways to resolve them.

I used the same material for a conversation with two students (the second point of view). They agreed that the theory of heat and the modern theory of heat can be considered as schemes. But it is better, I explained, to consider them as models. If the scheme only allows you to understand and act, for example, the aborigines consider heat to be the action of the spirit of things, and therefore I offer him food, say, water that needs to be heated, they sacrifice firewood. But ideas about the heat or energy of moving particles are models that allow you to calculate and predict. As models, these representations assume the presence of a simulated object (heat as a natural phenomenon), while the scheme first defines its object, for example, heat as an action of the spirit. The models assume both a special modeling procedure and an experimental verification of the constructed model.

With a student who had read a lot of Buddhism, I began to discuss how to explain, for example, boiling water or burns from boiling water, is it just seems to a person or does it really take place? If the latter, then maybe the world is not a mirage, but exists? The student could not find what to answer, and thought about it.

Finally, I suggested that the inventor of the atomic energy theory of heat compare the theory he created with the theory of hydrogen and modern physical theory for the advantages of the new theory. The student tried to do this, but got confused, saying finally: "maybe my theory is weaker, but it is mine and therefore better"" ^[10].   

Working with the first group can be interpreted as creating an environment 1.0. Its formation began with questioning (narartiv 1.0.). The question of what heat is, and the answer to it, gave rise to a certain reality. The second step in the constitution of the environment is the story with Thomson told by the author and the assumption about the possibility of the following discoveries and explanations of heat (narratives 2.0 and 3.0.). The third step is thinking through all narratives and crystallization of the problem situation. Against this background, I proposed a new explanation of heat (narrative 4.0.), as a solution to a problematic situation. 

Work with other students can be described in approximately the same way: questioning, creating narratives, crystallizing problem situations, inventing the following narratives (schemes, metaphors, symbols, explanations, discourses) that will help to resolve the problem situations that have arisen.

The analysis of such cases allows us to draw two conclusions.

The first. The environment in modern education is complex, consists of several environments. At the same time, two plans can be distinguished in it: one, common to all students, the other, individual and unique, working for an individual. The environment is formed by the narratives behind which the teacher and students stand, it is constituted by the plans of the teacher and the responses of all participants in pedagogical communication and communication. 

The second conclusion. Although the teacher creates an environment, he is an element of it, obeying the principles of the new pedagogy. For example, accompanying a student, helping him, initiating his activity and thinking, the teacher acts culturally and within the framework of horizontal relations, that is, he does not impose his point of view and content, but presents narratives or his point of view, discusses them together with the student, invites them to think.   

Indeed, in the case considered, "the author did not try to comb everyone under one comb. In the preliminary conversations, I identified four different types of individuals, worked with each type separately, tried not only to help my students, but also created problematic situations for them. At the same time, he did not dictate or impose ways to solve these problems. I tried to listen to the students and understand what they think or suggest. My suggestions, schemes and knowledge focused students on the content that actually exists in the culture or those that could exist in it. For example, two theories of heat were taken from the real history of science, and the possible ones did not contradict the logic of culture. The distinction between the scheme and the model is also not invented, Plato and Kant have already, and in our time G.P.Shchedrovitsky, V.S.Stepin, S. Popov and the author discussed this opposition" ^[2].

Now there is a very difficult question about the meaning of modern education. Once it was reduced to mastering the main ways of activity developed in history and culture, as well as the formation of the desired image of a person in society. At present, both are unattainable both due to the unaffordable and multivariate, and the loss of understanding, which is the norm and ideal for modernity. In addition, there is no one-size-fits-all way of life and sociality. What is there?

    Firstly, the diversity of forms of social and individual life, including forms of socialization of the individual (human images and education ^{[7, pp. 61-103]}). Secondly, at least three different social needs for educated people are conceivable. For everyone, competencies in the basic forms of communication and proficiency in basic techniques (understanding each other, the ability to communicate, defend their point of view, act in concert and independently, etc.; proficiency in languages, computers, technology, etc.). This need must still be met by "universal education".

For a large, but still smaller audience in comparison with the first one, this is the need for specialists who ensure the smooth functioning and development of social and technical structures, which together increasingly resemble a planetary megamachine containing millions and billions of specialized megamachines as elements and subsystems. The satisfaction of such a need, without which life on earth is impossible, is the purpose of "specialized education" (colleges, institutes).

The third, rather large and ever-expanding audience is due to the need for education focused on individual communities and individuals who order the content and images of a person they need. This class includes, for example, those who are unemployed for various reasons, but, nevertheless, striving to become someone (an artist, a master, a subtle expert in some field, etc.), or who have embarked on the path of salvation (religious, esoteric, etc.). Conditionally, this type of education can be called "education by interests".

If we take into account that our civilization is in the process of a double transition (the culture of modernity is coming to an end and the prerequisites for the next culture ? "future culture" ^[6] ? are being formed), then for all three audiences there is and will be an increasingly urgent need for competencies that allow, on the one hand, to cope with impending crises and risks, on the other - to work on saving life on Earth, which, of course, also includes building a sociality that meets modern challenges and opportunities.

But only those who realized this need and took on such a mission will probably be able to get involved in this work. A very specific education (let's call it "missionary") will be required from this audience: sometimes requiring great knowledge, but always humanitarian-oriented, aimed at preserving life, helping others, resisting evil. Missionary education presupposes the formation of critical thinking necessary for deconstructing and rethinking the ideas of modernity and analyzing the possible negative consequences of the proposed new solutions. 

So, there are four types of education: general, specialized, interest-based and missionary. The next widely discussed point in the literature is the differentiation of education in two ways: 1) for an average person and formation and 2) for an individual (usually a personality) and support. As I show, different types of personality and different ways of development (evolution) are provided by new forms of education (open, tutor, family, ecosystem, inclusive, etc.) ^[4]. As a result, a young person can theoretically choose any form of socialization, get an education that corresponds to his values and way of life.

We will also take into account these two circumstances: the opportunity to get the necessary knowledge (and not only knowledge, educational programs, courses, comments, etc.) from the Internet and other means of communication, as well as the increasing role in solving educational problems of the family and non-governmental institutions, for example, family paid education, business education. 

  All that has been said allows us to talk about the meaning of education as a complex field of meanings, assuming from the side of pedagogy and science the arrangement of a cultural and semiotic environment, and from the side of the individual thinking, choice and actions. The complexity of building such a dual-use environment (providing the formation of an average type of person and the support of different types of personality) is that it should work for the four specified types of education, acquaint a developing young person with the main types of problem situations, and form the competencies necessary to resolve them. It is not difficult to assume that in order to solve these problems, which mean the beginning of a real revolution in pedagogy, a radical reform of the school, the pedagogical corps, the organon of education (philosophy of education, didactics, methodology, academic subjects) will be required.

It may seem that the picture presented here is a pure project. This is not quite true, we brought to project clarity the already existing trends in the development of education and forms of its awareness. According to our classification, we are talking about a social project ^{[8, pp. 81-109]}. But this means that all interested actors (society, the authorities, the teaching corps, parents, the younger generation, scientists) should participate in its implementation. The implementation of large social projects, as I show, is a complex and non-guaranteed process that requires large resources and trained specialists. In addition, as a rule, when cultures and epochs change (and we are going through just such a period), it is necessary to develop and implement a whole system of interrelated social projects, which further complicates the task. The only thing that makes the situation easier is that all these projects should work for the formation of a new culture and sociality. In other words, this formation is a natural?artificial process: social design is based on established trends, which, in turn, are supported and stimulated by social design.