On the question of the goals and content of political education in modern Russia (based on the course “Fundamentals of Russian Statehood”)

Shirokova Marina Alekseevna ORCID: 0000-0002-8915-4326 Doctor of Philosophy Professor of the Department of Philosophy and Political Science of Altai State University 656049, Russia, Altai Krai, Barnaul, Dimitrova str., 66, office 308 marina_shirokova_2014@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction. The problems of interaction between the educational environment and the society in which it exists, the problems of mutual influence of political science and the practice of the political process, including both state-building and the development of civil society structures, are in many ways among the "eternal", always actively discussed in the scientific and pedagogical community. But the challenges of our time constantly highlight new aspects of the identified problems, updating them.

In our opinion, we will highlight the key points that have led modern researchers to pay close attention to the role of political science and political education in the socialization of young people, as well as in the possible transformation of socio-political reality. E. V. Orlova believes that the main factor contributing to the increasing importance of education as such is the increasingly complex reality of modern information society. In her opinion, on the one hand, "the development of information and communication technologies, the diversity of information ... the speed of its dissemination, the cross-border nature of information flows, the branching of social networks ... facilitate the communicative processes of social life" ^{[9, p. 171]}. On the other hand, all of the above inevitably leads, in particular, to the inconsistency of the process of forming the political preferences of students and students, "in which the needs and demands of young people, to a large extent, are exposed to various communication technologies." An additional factor that often brings chaos to the political consciousness of young people is the fierce competitiveness of the political environment, "where political parties in the struggle for the electorate seek to maximize the use of information and other resources, political advertising and building a reputational image." Hence, according to the researcher's conclusions, the role of the education system increases, which is able to "stop the ambiguous effect of media influence" on the formation of political consciousness and political culture of Russian youth ^{[9, p. 171]}. M. M. Simonova and T. A. Levchenkova argue in a similar vein, stating that "from the point of view of the impact of the external environment, all elements of the educational space currently exist in conditions of uncertainty," however, "the revival of the country is impossible without adequate knowledge about the world and about ourselves." Thus, a "fundamentally new type of socio-historical and humanitarian knowledge" is needed ^{[13, pp. 57-58]}, as honest as possible, but not self-deprecating.

Political education in Russia at the present stage. In the domestic (and world) scientific community, the dominant point of view is that political education is considered as an effective means of progressive development of society and, in addition, the improvement of human personality. Even representatives of the European Enlightenment of the XVII–XVIII centuries considered the education of a new person the main criterion for the progress of society and, accordingly, the education of a citizen as the basis for strengthening and improving the state. In our country, at the present stage of the existence of its state institutions, the beginning of understanding the role of political education in the political process was laid by A. I. Shcherbinin, the author of the first doctoral dissertation on political didactics, as well as a number of scientific and educational works on this topic. The researcher interprets political education as a factor that ensures "stability, stability and reproducibility of the political process" and, at the same time, contributes to the formation of critical thinking of citizens, which "allows you to disrupt the balance of established knowledge and ideas about this world and, as a result, push social forces to change, often the most radical." According to Shcherbinin, underestimating the potential of political education at the state level "means not only that citizens are objectively reduced to the level of objects of violent influence or manipulation, but also that science itself cannot identify the political world and act as an instrument for transmitting its adequate picture" ^{[18, 19]}. In later works, A.I. Shcherbinin repeatedly expressed concern about the "catastrophic reduction in the study of political disciplines at non–core faculties", which is "aggravated by the washing out of the subject of politics from school curricula" and ultimately leads "to spontaneous and often uncontrollable processes of forming a political picture of the world among young people and, more broadly, a picture of the future" ^{[20, p. 205]}. The same anxiety is recorded in the works of other researchers and teachers of the socio-humanitarian profile. Thus, Belgorod authors I. N. Gukova, Zh.V. Boyko and L.S. Polovneva, pointing to the reduction in the number of hours devoted to teaching political science in universities and, in general, the gradual marginalization of political science as an academic discipline, come to the disappointing conclusion that "the state of modern political education in Russia as a tool the political socialization of young people, designed to form their political subjectivity, is stressful, complex and does not fully realize its potential" ^{[2, p. 244]}.

These researchers, like most Russian scientists, use the term "political education" in a broad sense, understanding it both as a process of training political scientists and as political education for the widest possible layers of students, including, in addition to the general university course of political science, also elements of knowledge about politics integrated into the content of other socio-humanitarian disciplines. However, there is also an alternative position, expressed back in 2006 by L. G. Ionin, who distinguishes the concepts of "political science education" as "mastering the theoretical content and empirical methods of political science", and "political education" as "education in the spirit of a certain political doctrine" (liberal or conservative) ^{[5, p. 81]}. But in both cases, from Ionin's point of view, the possibilities of political science and political knowledge as a resource for the development of society and the state are quite modest.

Joining the opinion of those authors who consider political education in the widest possible context and recognize the possibilities of its influence on the socio-political process, we note that, as one of the constructive steps towards the creation of a new type of humanitarian knowledge, including in relation to the political sphere, an initiative to train a professional expert can be considered. communities of the concept of the educational and methodological complex on the discipline "Fundamentals of Russian statehood" within the framework of the project "DNA of Russia". The course has been taught directly since September 1, 2023, and the author of this article participates in its development and implementation at Altai State University. Since education plays the role of a link between scientific theory and social practice, in which students will then act, performing certain social roles, realizing and, if possible, realizing their interests, setting the goals of the training course, its sections and topics, as well as each specific lesson, is of particular importance. No activity can take place without goals, but educational activities in particular. The general didactic regularity is also the need to match the goals of the teacher with the goals of the students, without this we do not have to talk about the effectiveness of teaching.

The purpose of the discipline "Fundamentals of Russian statehood", according to the concept of the UMK, is "the formation of a system of knowledge, skills and competencies, as well as values, rules and norms of behavior associated with awareness of belonging to Russian society, the development of a sense of patriotism and citizenship, the formation of a spiritual, moral and cultural foundation of a developed and integral personality, aware of features of the historical path of the Russian state, the identity of its political organization and the pairing of individual dignity and success with social progress and political stability of their homeland" ^[10]. The formulation of the goal suggests that the state institutions of the education system have listened to the voice of researchers who for a number of years have been anxiously noting the decline in the importance and crisis of the value of patriotism in the political culture of Russian society. As V. A. Furs and A. A. Fedoseev write, an important prerequisite for such a crisis was "the withdrawal of the state from socially significant spheres under the influence of the liberal mainstream of the early nineties," when "the state did not express interest in imposing an official doctrine or forming a certain civic position." As a result, "the educational and communicative functions of political education were losing their significance."The strategy prevailed, according to which "the learning process ideally involves the development of a purely instrumental, value- and ideologically neutral attitude to political reality" ^{[14, p. 13-14]}, while the educational component plays only an auxiliary role. Then, from the beginning of the 2000s, the situation seemed to change. A request was formed from the state to foster patriotism, cohesion and national identity, which gradually received verbal and institutional formalization. It is known that in February 2016, Russian President Vladimir Putin, at a meeting with the Leaders Club (an association of entrepreneurs from 40 Russian regions), said that the national idea of Russia is patriotism ^{[17, p. 175]}. "We have no, and there can be no other unifying idea, except patriotism… We will not come up with any other idea, and there is no need to come up with it," RIA Novosti quotes the president. Putin further noted that in order to introduce a national idea, it is not enough for "the president or anyone else to say this once." To form an idea of patriotism as a national idea, "it is necessary to constantly talk about it, at all levels" ^[8]. However, we agree with the researchers that "the strengthening of the regulatory role of the state in the socio-political sphere during the presidency of V. V. Putin" for a long time did not have a significant impact on the content of political education in universities. The educational aspects of political education continued to be on the periphery of the goals and objectives of the training courses and remained "the prerogative of the state media, pro-government public organizations and foundations" ^{[14, p. 14]}. But the understanding of the need for the educational system to participate in this process was growing. Even before the emergence of the project of the discipline "Fundamentals of Russian Statehood", in 2017, L. V. Baltovsky proposed the concept of statehood as a national-state identity, revealed in such concepts as loyalty, citizenship and patriotism. Emphasizing the importance of including these values in the standards of the basic educational programs of bachelor's and master's degree, this author noted that statehood "is a product of purposeful design and construction", and it is "the education system that forms the cognitive component of statehood" ^[1]. The above thesis is true, but it is worth adding that the education system also forms the axiological component of statehood, since citizenship, patriotism and statehood itself are considered precisely as values, and the content of education presupposes the presence of not only a scientific, but also a value component in it.

In the same 2017, S. A. Shestakov expressed the following idea: "The political consciousness of the younger generation is a vacuum. Now is the most dangerous period, which is an ideological gap that is easy to fill with any content ... It is necessary, in the end, to call things by their proper names and recreate the name of the field of activity under consideration: the system of political education" ^{[16, p. 181]}. S. A. Dianov, who shares his point of view, noted in an article in 2023 that it is necessary to educate Russian youth using the platforms of educational institutions of higher education and discussing this issue at scientific conferences, public forums and youth gatherings ^[3].

It has already been mentioned above that the educational component has been falling out of the process of studying in Russian universities for decades, whereas historically education is an inseparable organic part of education and personal development. Thus, today universities often produce narrow specialists-technocrats (this also applies to humanitarian areas of training at universities), who are able to solve only particular problems. But a specialist is also obliged to understand the results and consequences of his activities, their role and significance for the whole society ^[12]. M. M. Simonova and T. A. Levchenkova rightly point out that a person's awareness of his connection with the country, responsibility for the future of the country "is impossible without the formation of an ideological and moral civil system of values of the individual." Otherwise, we are faced with the following effect: "A sufficiently high level of professional training of a student with almost complete absence of civic education leads to an outflow of the best young cadres to the West, to the so-called "brain drain" ^{[13, p. 58]}, which has a very negative impact on the viability and integrity of Russian society, as in the situation of modern global challenges, and from the point of view of the prospects for the development of our country. The data of sociologist M. V. Lisauskene are indicative. Analyzing the results of surveys of students of a number of Siberian universities, as well as students of colleges and technical schools, she concluded that about 40% of them are convinced that "you can live in any country, just to live well" ^[7]. We repeat, such a learning outcome is not accidental at all, it is determined by those "professional educational routes" that continued to be offered to students in the first decades of the XXI century. In 2015, O. V. Parilov had every reason to state: "It seems that the initiators of the modernization of Russian education see the formation of a narrow professional pragmatist as the main goal… In any case, the problem of moral formation of personality is clearly in the background. But such an approach may turn out to be a time bomb planted under society." And further, the author warns about the mentioned danger of "brain drain": "In the obsession with academic mobility of students and teachers, there is a real threat to form "world citizens" in the spirit of an ultra-liberal attitude, not attached to any national-cultural soil; to spray brains and talents" ^[11].

As we can see, students, and any target audience to which the activities of the political education system can be addressed, often underestimate and misunderstand that "without rallying the population of the country into a single community, without realizing themselves as citizens of a particular state with certain rights and responsibilities, the country simply will not be able to exist normally and to develop in a civilized way" ^{[13, p. 58]}. Moreover, it will not be able to indicate alternatives to the Western path of civilizational development, and it is the concept of "state-civilization" that is positioned as one of the fundamental ones in the "DNA of Russia" project. Back in 2005, E. L. Dubko wrote about the difficulties associated with the education of patriotism in the context of globalization: the global megasocium "levels a lot of differences, together with them abolishes patriotism and citizenship" ^{[4, p. 377]}. Patriotism, according to the definition of L. V. Baltovsky, is the "highest form of statehood", represented in the form of "meaningful behavior, which is based on personal responsibility for the fate of one's fatherland, the continuity of culture and historical tradition" ^[1].

Another problematic point of modern political education and socio-humanitarian knowledge in general, which also marks the negative consequences of highly professional training of specialists, leads us to the values of personal freedom and self-determination, and in addition, the development of critical thinking of the individual. It is characteristic that foreign social philosophers and educators, who are supporters of the democratization and humanization of education, have long opposed the excessive "professionalization" of the latter. Here is the opinion of M. Adler, the author of the work "The Haves without the have-nots. Essays on democracy and Socialism of the XXI century", which emphasizes: "Vocational education is the training of special work in the economic machine. It strives to make money for a good life, but not to let you live a decent life. It is slavish both in its goals and in its methods" ^{[21, p. 126]}. It is interesting to compare the position of the American philosopher with the statement of the founder of Russian Slavophilism, A. S. Khomyakov, who in 1850 gave an exhaustive explanation of the one-sidedness of professional education without harmonious development of personality: "The mind, from an early age limited to one area of human knowledge, falls of necessity into one-sidedness and stupidity and becomes incapable of success even in the field that it was meant for him. Generalization makes a person the master of his knowledge; early specialization makes a person a slave to approved lessons" ^{[15, pp. 226-227]}. At the same time, the Slavophiles, of course, considered the comprehensive education and scientific competence of a person only in unity with "smart" patriotism. Thus, another theorist of Slavophilism, I. V. Kireevsky, was convinced that love for Russia should be "conscious", it is not just "blind delight expressed in meaningless exclamations" ^{[6, p. 210]}. Like Khomyakov, Kireevsky noted that professional training in any field of activity is clearly insufficient for the formation of a "whole personality" that organically combines the principles of freedom and responsibility in its culture. A truly educated person is someone who knows how to use and assimilate all the achievements of the progress of world science and, at the same time, lives the life of his people and fatherland. It should be noted that modern developers of the course "Fundamentals of Russian Statehood" have tried to take into account all these aspects, highlighting as a special task of the discipline the need to "reveal the value-behavioral content of a sense of citizenship and patriotism, inseparable from developed critical thinking, free personal development and the ability to make independent judgments about the current political and cultural context" ^[10].

Conclusion. It can be concluded that the course "Fundamentals of Russian Statehood" is able to fill some gaps in the system of Russian political education, due to a reduction in the number of hours devoted to teaching political science and other socio-political disciplines, especially in the aspect concerning the value component of the content of political education, although we should not forget about the scientific component of the latter. A balanced state policy in the field of education is needed, the main vector of development of which should be the combination of the principles of humanization of education, ensuring the rights of the individual to receive education according to his inclinations and needs, creating conditions for self-development and self-realization of a person in society, with the upbringing of a full-fledged citizen with a developed sense of duty, historical memory, patriotism, connection with his country., her past, present and future.