Pedology is literally the science of children. Her fate is tragic. It originated at the end of the 19th century in the USA and Western Europe. The founder of Russian pedology was the brilliant scientist and organizer A.P. Nechaev. A great contribution was made by the remarkable scientist "hero of Russian psychoneurology" V.M. Bekhterev (1857-1927). During the 15 years after the revolution, pedology developed: a normal scientific life was going on with heated discussions, in which approaches were developed and growing pains inevitable for a young science were overcome.

Pedology strived to study the child in a comprehensive manner in all its manifestations and taking into account all influencing factors. P.P. Blonsky (1884-1941) defined pedology as the science of the age-related development of a child in a certain socio-historical environment. "She was associated with everything that concerns the individual differences of children, the specifics of their age" 55. Of course, the enormous complexity of creating an interdisciplinary science did not ensure the unity of views among pedologists. Yet in these views, four basic principles could be distinguished:

1. The child is an integral system. It should not be studied in parts (something by psychology, something by neurology, etc.).

2. The child can be understood only considering that he is in constant development.

3. The child can be studied only taking into account his social environment, which affects not only the psyche, but often also the anthropomorphic parameters of development.

4. The science of the child should be not only theoretical, but also practical.

Pedologists worked in schools, kindergartens, various teenage associations. Psychological and pedological counseling was actively carried out, work with parents was carried out, theory and practice of psychodiagnostics were developed. Institutes of pedology operated in Moscow and Leningrad, where representatives of various sciences tried to trace the development of a child from birth to adolescence. Pedologists were trained very thoroughly: they studied physiology, child psychiatry, neuropathology, anthropology, sociology, and theoretical studies were combined with everyday practical work. Until now, we have nothing like this.

Criticism of the scientific inconsistency of pedology by the pedagogical community in the USSR ended with the decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks dated July 4, 1936 "On pedological perversions in the system of the People's Commissariat of Education." Pedology was destroyed, and what was left of it was hidden in a special storehouse. Many scientists were repressed, the fates of others were mutilated. A.B. Zalkind, leaving after the meeting where it was announced the prohibition of pedology, died on the street from a heart attack. All pedological institutes and laboratories were closed, pedology was wiped out from the curricula of all universities. Fortunately, many have managed to retrain. So, the color of Soviet psychology - Basov, Blonsky, Vygotsky, Kornilov, Kostyuk, Leontyev, Luria, Elkonin, Myasishchev, etc., as well as teachers Zankov and Sokolyansky were pedologists.

The decree and the subsequent landslide "criticism" barbarously but masterfully perverted the essence of pedology, blaming it for adherence to the so-called theory of two factors, which fatally predetermines the fate of a child by a frozen social environment and heredity. In fact, V.P. Zinchenko, pedologists were ruined by their value system: "Intellect occupied one of the leading places in it. They valued primarily work, conscience, intelligence, initiative, and nobility." Talking about pedology is not just longing for the past, but the experience and bitterness of loss.

Among the scolded sciences, pedology occupies, perhaps, a special place. There are few witnesses of its flourishing; we habitually judge about the 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 persistently migrates from one dictionary to another with unchanged remarks. Until recently, a closer and less orthodox view of pedology was perceived as slander against Soviet pedagogy, undermining its very foundations. In the current historical situation, calls have appeared for the revival and development of Russian pedology. We will try to analyze the development of pedology, its ideas, methodology and prospects for revival.

It can be said that pedology had a relatively long history, a fast-paced and complete history.

There are conflicting views on the starting date in the history of pedology. It belongs 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 the publication of the works of the great teachers J.J. Rousseau, Y.A. Komensky and others. "The wisest educators teach children this," wrote J.J. "Emil" 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 man in a child, without thinking about what he is before becoming a man. "

The primary sources of pedology, therefore, are in a rather distant past, and if we take them into account as a basis for pedagogical theory and practice, then - 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 psychology, on which, as one of the foundations, pedagogy should be built, and his followers for the first time begin to systematically develop pedagogical psychology 2.

Usually educational psychology was defined as a branch of applied psychology, which deals with the application of data from psychology 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, on the other hand, it should discuss pedagogical provisions from the point of view of their compliance with psychological laws. Unlike didactics and private methods, which address the questions of how a teacher should teach, the task of educational psychology is to find out how students learn.

In the process of the formation of educational psychology, in the middle of the 19th century, an intensified restructuring of general psychology took place. Under the influence of the developing experimental natural science, in particular the experimental physiology of the sense organs, psychology also became experimental. Herbartan psychology with its abstract-deductive method (reduction of psychology to the mechanics of the flow of ideas) was replaced by Wundt's experimental psychology, which studies mental phenomena by methods of experimental physiology. Educational psychology increasingly calls 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 conclusions of general experimental psychology into pedagogy), and XX century. (the subject of experimental research in psychological laboratories is the problems of learning themselves).

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 teaching 4,5.

A general picture of a child's life was also supposed to be given by another, as it was believed, a 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 the life of a growing person on external, especially social conditions, and his upbringing. So the need for a special science about children, pedology, was deduced from the development of educational psychology and experimental pedagogy 3.

The same necessity grew out of child psychology, which, in contrast to educational psychology with its applied nature, grew out of evolutionary concepts and experimental natural science, posing along with questions about the phylogenetic development of a person the question of his ontogenetic development. Under the influence of discussions in evolutionary theory, 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 divorced from his physical development. As a result, it was proposed to create a new science - pedology, which would be devoid of this drawback and would give a more complete picture of the age-related 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 - is relatively recent and has made significant advances over the past decade."

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

The originality of the isolated science, however, is demonstrated by its identifying apparatus and research methods. As a substantiation of the independence of science, 7 the analysis of its own methods is especially interesting.

Despite the fact that pedology was intended to give a picture of the development of a child and the unity of his mental and physical properties, using a complex, systematic approach to the study of childhood, having previously dialectically solved the problem of the relationship between "bio-socio" in research methodology, from the very beginning priority is given to psychological study the child (even the founder of pedology, St. Hall, considers pedology only a part of genetic psychology), and this hegemony is naturally or artificially maintained throughout the history of science. Such a one-sided understanding of pedology did not satisfy E. Meiman 4, who considers one psychological study of a child 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 child development, to which many psychiatrists have 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 the dissatisfaction is illustrated by the following thought: “I must tell the truth: even now pedology courses are actually a vinaigrette from a wide variety of branches of knowledge, a simple set of information from various sciences, everything that relates to a child. But is such a vinaigrette a special independent science? , no "8. From this point of view, what E. Meiman understands as pedology is a "simple vinaigrette" (though 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 satisfying our understanding or at least claiming to be 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 a social order. The first formula defines pedology as the science of the characteristics of childhood. This is the most general formula found earlier in other authors 9.

The second formula defines pedology as "the science of the growth, constitution, and behavior of a typical mass child in different periods of childhood." So, if the first formula only points to the child as an object of pedology, then the second says that pedology should study him not from one side, but from different sides; at the same time, a restriction 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 final form to the definition: "Pedology studies the symptom complexes of different eras, phases and stages of childhood in their temporal sequence and depending on different 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 (the fourth formula) remain unsolved.

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 ways, even more complex questions can arise here. Naturally, such a complex object from the very beginning demanded a differentiated cognitive attitude towards itself. In exactly the same way as when studying a person generally for a long time such scientific disciplines as anatomy, physiology and psychology, which study the same subject, have arisen, but each from its own point of view, similarly in the study of the child from the very beginning, the same paths were used, due to which anatomy, physiology arose and developed and early childhood psychology.

With development, the differentiation of this knowledge always increases. In this respect, the scientific knowledge of the child has not yet completed its differentiation to this day. On the other hand, 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 ontogeny and phylogenesis, the provisions of which would guide the research of special sciences, the process of education and training.

In this understanding of pedology, a special, and sometimes unjustifiably, higher place was assigned among other sciences studying the child 6,13. The sciences that study the child also investigate the development process of various aspects of child's nature, establishing epochs, phases and stages. It is clear that each of these areas of 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 the limits of his field, to trace not only the 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 ontogenesis. In other words, even in a psychological study of a child, the researcher is faced with the task of identifying complex "age-related symptom complexes" in 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 peculiarity of which is only in the fact 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 combining them with each other, in the course 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 ultimate problems of cognition, but are only part of one problem - the problem of man.

Based on these provisions, it was assumed that the boundaries of pedological research are very extensive, and there is no reason to narrow them 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 ontogenesis itself, the change and transition of some states into others. In addition, an important task of the study was something in between, typical, something that immediately covers a wide range of studied properties. A huge variety of all kinds of features - individual, gender, social, etc. - was also material for pedological research. The task of systematization of scientific data in various areas of the child's study was considered the primary task.

The above consideration of the determinant apparatus of pedology can be supplemented with two more definitions of pedology, which were in use until 1931: 1) Pedology is the science of factors, patterns, stages and types of the socio-biological formation of an individual, 16 2) Pedology is the science of genetic processes, about the development of new complicating mechanisms under the influence of new factors, about the breakdown, restructuring, transformation of functions and the underlying material substrates under the conditions of the growth of the child's body. "

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 is the work of S.S. Molozhaviy 12. It 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 situation of the environment with all its sides and functions (2); the restoration of the disturbed equilibrium 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 identification, but also as an act of growth, restructuring and consolidation of the system of behavior (3); it is possible to approach the type of behavior, to its stable, more or less constant moments only by studying a number of integral acts of human behavior, for only they are able to reveal its available fund and its further possibilities (4); 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 excites 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 observation technique was considered very promising among pedologists. In its development, a prominent place belongs to M.Ya. Basov and his school, which worked at the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen. There were two types of methods of pedological work: the method of studying the processes of behavior and the method of studying all kinds of results of these processes. Behavior was considered necessary to study from the point of view of the structure of behavioral processes and the factors that determine them. In doing so, behavior was usually contrasted with experimental research. Such an opposition, 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 the conditions of life situations.

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

Fierce discussion and widespread use of the test methodology in public education in our country (almost every student had to go through a test assessment) led to the fact that today pedology is most often remembered in connection with the use of tests with "fear" of finding oneself as a result of testing. A variety of tests have been developed and used for the first time in the United States. The first broad review of American tests in Russian for identifying mental giftedness and school success in children was given by N.A. Bukhgolts and A.M. Schubert in 1926.19 An analysis of these tests, their tasks and results leads the authors to the conclusion that they are undoubtedly promising. applications in pedology. Scientific psychological commission, which worked out in 1919-1921. a series of well-known and still "National Tests", designed for use in all public schools in the United States, defined the task of these studies: 1) to help subdivide children of different school groups into smaller subgroups: children of the mentally stronger and mentally weaker; 2) 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) help to reveal those individual reasons due to which individual children cannot adapt to class work and to school life; 4) to promote the cause of vocational guidance of children, at least for the purpose of preliminary selection of those suitable for more highly skilled work 19.

In the mid-20s. tests begin to spread widely in our country, first in scientific research, and by the end of the 20s. are being 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 the Binet tests, are being developed. Testing is carried out in natural conditions for schoolchildren, in the classroom 10,20,21; tests become massive, and the results can be statistically processed. The test data make it possible 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 assessing school performance. An objective and quantitatively more accurate accounting 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 in comparison with the average growth in the success of the 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 learning groups. This contradicts the totalitarian dogmas of egalitarian education, the failure of which has been experienced by several generations.

In American schools, individualization of learning is at the core of the formation of class groups to this day. Our earlier furious, and now increasingly weakening resistance to such an "encroachment" on the integrity of class collectives, the desire to educate a not really socially active person 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, is apparently a consequence of the unitarity of the state, the domination of authoritarianism, the closeness of the individual, of our thinking.

The test method was credited with the "fact that it transforms pedology from a science, generally and subjectively reasoning, into a science that studies real reality" 3.

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

The criticism was based on a rather strong initial imperfection of the tests. The practice of long-term use of the test method abroad and in domestic psychodiagnostics of recent times has shown the inconsistency of such criticism in many positions and its insufficient validity.

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

1) the application of testing 12.20 was fundamentally rejected;

2) limited use of tests (in terms of coverage and conditions) was allowed with the obligatory primacy of other research methods 10, 16, 22;

3) 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 acquaintance with the subject and methods of science, it is necessary to consider the originality of the main stages of its development.

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

Work in this area has also begun to develop in Moscow. G.I.Rossolimo in 1911 founded and maintained at his own expense the clinic of nervous diseases of childhood, which was 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 GI Rosselimo went further than A.P. Nechaev along the path of splitting the psyche into separate functions: ten experiments for each psychological function. GI Rosselimo's technique quickly took root, was used in the form of a "mass psychological profile". But his work was also limited only to the psyche, without touching on the biological characteristics of the ontogeny of the child. The dominant method of research 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 (!), Was also criticized.

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 project of the institute was submitted to the Russian Society of Normal and Pathological Psychology. In addition to the psychological department, the pedological department for experimental and other research was included in the number of departments, and a scientific center for the study of personality was created. In connection with the founding of the department of pedology, V.M. Bekhterev had the idea of ​​creating a Pedological Institute, which at first existed 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 provided, and V.M. Bekhterev had to submit a number of notes and applications to government agencies. 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."

Bekhterev's students note that he considered the following problems to be 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 intellect and morality, and the development of individual self-activity.

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

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

V.M. Bekhterev is considered the founder of pedoreflexology in its main directions: genetic reflexology with a clinic, the study of the first stages of the development of a child's nervous activity, age-related reflexology in preschool and school ages, collective and individual reflexology. Pedoreflexology was based on the study of the laws of temporary and permanent functional relationships of the main sections of the central nervous system and sections 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 criticized the method of "psychological profiles" for excessive fragmentation of the psyche and the conditions in which the experiment was conducted, and proposed his own methodology based on biological principles studying the child, in many respects echoes the methodology of V.M. Bekhterev. The same period, however, includes the work of prof. AF Lazursky, deepening the observation technique. In 1918 his book "Natural Experiment" appeared 32. His disciple and follower is the already mentioned prof. M.Ya.Basov.

The study of the anatomical and morphological features of a growing person, along with the work of the school of V.M. Bekhterev, is carried out under the guidance of prof. N.P. Gundobin, a specialist in pediatric diseases. His book "Peculiarities of Childhood", published in 1906, summarizes the results of his and his colleagues' 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-Pedological Department of the 2nd Moscow State University. However, the Central Pedagogical Institute dealt almost exclusively with issues of child psychology; 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 was. And, finally, the Medico-Pedological Institute in 1922 published a collection entitled "Towards Child Psychology and Psychopathology", the very first article of which states that the main task of the named institute is the study of child defectiveness.

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

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

Soon after the congress in Orel, a special "Pedological Journal" began to appear. In the same 1993, M.Ya.Basov's monograph "Experience of the Methodology of Psychological Observations" 33 was published, as a result of the work of his school. Being to a large extent a continuation 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 a child, developing a method of conducting long-term objective observation of a child in the natural conditions of his life, which makes it possible to characterize a living child personality. This technique quickly won the sympathy of teachers and pedologists and became widely used.

In January 1924, the II neuropsychiatric congress was held in Leningrad. At this congress, pedology took an even more significant place. A number of reports on genetic reflexology by N.M. Schelovanov and his collaborators were devoted to the study of early childhood.

In 1925, P.P. Blonsky's work "Pedology" 35 appeared - an attempt to form 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 published two more works: "Pedology in a first-stage mass school" 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 promoters of pedology, especially its applied value. The first book provides important material for understanding the learning process for writing and counting. The second provides a theoretical basis for the pedagogical process.

At the same time, the publication of S.S. Molozhavyi's brochure: "A program for studying the behavior of a child or a children's group" 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 its anatomical and physiological features are taken into account.

By the end of 1925, a significant number of publications had already been accumulated in the USSR that can be attributed to pedology. However, most publications lack the systems 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 the synthetic level that allows one 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, affecting his social status, contradictions from the scientific often passed into the ideological sphere, took on a political connotation.

In the spring of 1927, a pedological conference was convened in Moscow at the USSR People's Commissariat for Education (?), 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 value of the team as a factor that forms the child's personality; methods of studying the child (mainly discussion on the method of tests); the relationship between 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 training, a specialist in sex education, whose work was based solely on ideas about the sociogenic development of the individual and on Marxist phraseology.

The popularity of views on the bioplasticity of an organism, especially a child's organism, 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 central nervous system possesses maximum plasticity, and the whole evolution is in the direction of increasing this plasticity. At the same time, there are types of the nervous system that are constitutionally determined. For the practice of upbringing, it is important "the presence of this plasticity, so that heredity is not given the same 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 upbringing and for taking into account the constitutional features of the nervous system in terms of upbringing of nervous hygiene" 40.

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

VG Shtefko gave his scheme of interaction between the "constitution" of the organism and the environment in his report at the 1927 meeting. The constitution of an organism is determined by: 1) hereditary factors, acting in the 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 tendency of the decisive 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 and dominated in our country for more than a dozen years.

The second debatable issue was the problem of the relationship between the individual and the collective. In connection with the installation of the Soviet school "to abandon 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 collective of children. endogenous stimulus of the collective "22.

On the basis of the child's last understanding, 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 an individual child, but only a collective; the teacher learns the individual child through the collective. A good student for a teacher is a good one in a given children's collective, in comparison with other children who make up this collective. Pedagogical practice pushes for collectivism, pedagogical theory - for individualism. Hence the need to "rebuild the theory" 21. Like A.B. Zalkind, prof. A.A. Zaluzhny also advocated a new "Soviet" pedology. Thus, pedology and pedagogy that have existed until now, nurtured on the ideas of Rousseau and Locke, are declared reactionary, since they pay too much attention to the child himself, his heredity, the laws of the formation of his personality, while it is necessary to educate in a team, through a team on the system will need collective members - social cogs, spare parts for the system.

The issues of collective pedology were also dealt with by prof. G.A. Fortunatov 43 and G.V. Murashov with co-workers. They developed a methodology for the study of the children's collective. E.A. Arkin, mentioned above, also studied the constitutional types of children in a team. His subdivision of collective members by the tendency toward more extraversion in boys and introversion in girls has drawn strong criticism.

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

1. From the unformed, veiled, the social order has become a clearly formulated, proclaimed, on the basis of which the methodology of science was built. The maximum "bioplasticity" and the decisive transformative influence of the environment from the opinion of individual pedologists turned into the credo of pedology - "revolutionary optimism." An illustration can be the statement of N.I. Bukharin, sounded a little later at the pedagogical congress, which is very indicative for that period, and which the authors risk to cite in full, despite the cumbersomeness of the quote:

"Supporters of the biogenetic law, without any restriction or who are carried away by it, suffer from the fact that they transfer biological laws to phenomena of a social series and consider them identical. This is an undoubted error and is in an absolutely undoubted connection with a number of biological theories (racial theory, the doctrine of historical and non-historical peoples, etc.) We by no means stand on the point of view of abstract equality, abstract people; this is a absurd theory that cries out to heaven due to its helplessness and contradiction to facts. historical ... silent the theoretical prerequisite for this is what you, pedologists, call the plasticity of the body, those. the ability to catch up in a short time, make up for the lost ... If we stood on the point of view that racial or national characteristics are so stable values ​​that they need to be changed for millennia, 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 framework to the problem of classes. The possessing classes (in their opinion) have the best features, the best brains and other magnificent qualities that predetermine and forever perpetuate their dominance of a certain group of persons, certain social categories and find a natural-scientific, primarily biological, justification for this dominance. Much research on this has not been done, but even if, which I do not exclude, we got better brains from the possessing classes, at least from their cadres than from the proletariat, then in the end does this mean, that these theories are correct? It does not mean that it was so, but it will be different, because such prerequisites are created that allow the proletariat, under the conditions of the plasticity of the organism, to make up for the lost and completely redesign itself, or, as Marx put it, to change its own nature ... this plasticity of the organism ... Then the tacit prerequisite would be a slow change and a relatively small influence of the social environment; the proportion between pre-social adaptations and social adaptations would be such that the center of gravity would lie in pre-social adaptations, and social adaptations would play a small role, and then there would be no way out, the worker would be biologically attached to a hard-labor wheelbarrow ... Therefore, the question about the social environment and the influence of the social environment should be decided in such a sense that the influence of the social environment plays a greater role than it is usually assumed "44.

2. The ideological conjuncture not only opened a "green" street for all sociologizers of pedology, transforming it from a science that studies a child into a science that describes facts that confirm ideological premises, and mainly studies the environment and its impact on the child, and not himself, 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 was backed by unitarity, extended to pedology, where the faster development of science required the unification of scientific forces; however, this explanation was accepted by the "upper classes" and was promoted and carried out among pedologists only under the banner of the primacy of environmental impact on the organism.

The first pedological congress was called upon to complete the transformation of pedology, to give a showcase battle to dissent, to unite the scattered ranks of pedologists on a single platform. But if only these tasks stood before the congress, it would hardly have been possible to carry out it according to a scenario reminiscent of the scenario of the famous session of the All-Union Agricultural Academy. There were other tasks before the congress, the relevance of which was understood by all pedologists without exception.

The following scientific problems required urgent analysis and solution:

complete isolation of pedology from pediatrics, and hence the narrow therapeutic and hygienic bias of pediatrics, on the one hand, and underutilization by pedology of the most valuable biological materials available in pediatrics, on the other; lack of communication 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 lack of clarity in the relationship between pedology and the People's Commissariat for Health and the People's Commissariat for Education, the boundaries of their functions were not defined; unplanned research work on pedology on a national scale, drift and disproportion in various areas of research; the lack of a full-time position for pedological practitioners, which was a brake on the creation of their own personnel; insufficient funding for pedological research;

the lack of clarity in the demarcation of the work of pedologists of various scientific and practical training, which led to difficulties in the training of pedologists at higher educational institutions and an overlap in work; the need to create a central all-union pedological journal and society, coordinating and covering the work 45.

Based on the problems posed before the congress, we can conclude that the congress was supposed to be internal and external formalization in pedology. The congress was organized by the scientific and pedagogical section of the Main Academic Council (GUS), the People's Commissariat for Education and the People's Commissariat for Health with the participation of over 2000 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. Pavlov and others were elected to the honorary presidium.

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. VM Bekhterev shocked the congress and postponed its start. VM Bekhterev has just finished a psycho-neurological congress and actively participated in the preparation of a pedagogical one. The congress was absorbed by the death of the academician, many of his employees took off their reports and went home. The first day of the congress was entirely dedicated to the memory of V.M. Bekhterev and his funeral.

The work of the congress was held from December 28, 1927 to January 4, 1928. A.B. Zalkind made an opening speech. He said that the tasks of the congress were to take into account the work done by Soviet pedologists, to determine directions and groupings among them, to link pedology with pedagogy and to unite Soviet pedology "into a single collective." On December 28, 29, 30 the plenum of the congress worked; From December 30 to January 4, seven sections worked in special areas. In the work of the plenary sessions of the congress, four main sections were determined: political and ideological problems, general questions of pedology, the problem of the methodology of studying childhood, pedology of labor.

Political and ideological problems were touched upon in the speeches of N.I.Bukharin, A.V. Lunacharsky, the speeches of N.K.Krupskaya and the report of A. B. Zalkind "Pedology in the USSR" were devoted to general issues of pedology. NI Bukharin mainly spoke about the relationship between pedology and pedagogy. In addition, he tried to smooth out the differences in the methodological plan of the schools of V.M. Bekhterev and I.P. Pavlov from his positions. AV Lunacharsky, like NI Bukharin, emphasized the need for an early union of pedagogy and pedology, their interpenetration. N.K. Krupskaya spoke at the congress on the same occasion.

From a historical point of view, it is interesting to cite excerpts from the speeches at the congress of these historical figures who had a direct and indirect impact on the development of pedology.

N.K. Krupskaya: "Pedology is materialistic by its very essence ... Modern pedology has a lot of shades: who simplifies the issue and underestimates the influence of the social environment, even tends to see in pedology some kind of antidote against Marxism, which is penetrating deeper and deeper into the school; on the contrary, it goes too far and underestimates heredity and the influence of general laws of development.

A serious drawback that hinders the implementation of the Gusov platform was its pedological lack of development - the absence in science of sufficiently clear instructions about the educational capacity of each age, about its specific features that require age-specific individualization, a programmatic approach.

Even the little that pedology has done in the development of methods of teaching and education shows what tremendous prospects there are, how much it is possible to facilitate learning using the pedological approach, how much can be achieved in educational terms. "

A. V. Lunacharsky: "The stronger the link between pedology and pedagogy, the sooner pedology is allowed to pedagogical work, to contact the pedagogical process, the sooner it will grow. Our school network can approach a really normal school network in a socialist Marxist - a state that scientifically builds its culture, when it will be thoroughly imbued with a network of sufficiently scientifically trained pedologists. one more thing is to introduce pedology as one of the main subjects in the preparation of a teacher, and to introduce it seriously, so that a person who knows pedology teaches. "

NI Bukharin: "The relationship between pedology and pedagogy is the relationship between a theoretical discipline, on the one hand, and a normative discipline, on the other; moreover, this relationship is such that, from a certain point of view, pedology is a servant of pedagogy. But this does not mean that the category of the servant is the category of the cook who has not learned to manage. On the contrary, the position of the servant here is such a situation when this servant gives directives 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", dedicated to general issues of pedology, which summarized the work done, named the main directions of pedology that existed at this period, institutions engaged in pedological research and practice. The report practically summed up all the studies of childhood over the past decades, 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. Molozhavy, V.G. Shtefko, A.G. Ivanov-Smolensky, M.Ya.Basov, K.N. Kornilov, A.S. Zaluzhny and others.

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

Some of the speakers demanded that the disagreements between the schools of V. Bekhterev and I. Pavlov be “eliminated” and that practical conclusions could be “established” on the basis of which further pedological work could be carried out.

In-depth study of general and specific issues of pedology took place in seven sections: research and methodological, preschool, preschool, school age (two sections), difficult child, organizational and programmatic.

In general, the congress was held according to a conceived scenario: pedology received official recognition, "united" its scattered forces, demonstrating personally who belongs to the "future" of pedology, and outlined ways of cooperation with pediatrics and pedagogy as a methodological basis. After the congress, a voluminous journal "Pedology" began to be published under the editorship of prof. A. B. Zalkind, the first issues of which were mainly collected from the reports presented at the congress. Pedology receives the necessary appropriations, 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, a program of the People's Commissariat for Education on Pedology is being developed, and pediatric doctors are being trained in pediatrics. But in the same period, more and more pressure is being exerted on the biological research of the child, because from here comes the danger for "revolutionary pedological optimism", for the dominant ideology.

The 30s were years of dramatic events in pedology. A period of confrontation of currents began, which led to the final sociologization of pedology. Once again, a discussion has flared up about what kind of pedology our state needs, whose methodology is more revolutionary and Marxist. Despite the persecution, representatives of the "biologizing" direction (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 sociologizing trend lacked scientific arguments, then other methods were used: the enemy was declared unreliable. Thus, EA Arkin turned out to be a "militant minority and a Machist", NM Shchelovanov was an "idealist", and the school of VM Bekhterev was "reactionary".

“On the one hand, we are observing the same old academicism with problems and research methods divorced from the present day. In pedology, we are also not surprised by the indifference of the same departments and groups to socialist construction: a real "synthesis" of theory and practice, but a negative synthesis, that is, deeply hostile to the proletarian revolution. "

From January 25 to February 2, 1930, the All-Union Congress on 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, autogeneticism, directly directed against the pace of socialist construction; the congress painfully hit the idealistic conceptions of personality, which is always an apology for naked individualism; the congress rejected idealistic and biologic-mechanical approaches to the collective, revealing its class content and its powerful stimulating role in the conditions of socialism; the congress demanded a radical restructuring of the methods of studying man on the basis of dialectical-materialistic principles and on the basis of the requirements of the practice of socialist construction. " And if at the First Pedological Congress scientific contradictions were still in progress, then here everything already takes on a political coloring and scientific opponents turn out to be enemies of the proletarian revolution. The "witch hunt" began. In fact, at this congress, the reactology school (K.N. Kornilova) was destroyed, since "the whole theory and practice of reactology cries out about its imperialist general methodological claims" and along the way "the ultrareflexological perversions of V.M. Bekhterev and his school were revealed" declared reactionary.

In 1931, the journal "Pedology" published a new heading - "Tribune", set aside specifically for exposing "internal" enemies in pedology. Many swore allegiance to the regime, "realized" their "guilt" and repented. Materials are being published with a "radical revision of the pre-Soviet age standards" of childhood from the point of view of their much greater capacity and qualitatively different content among the children of the working masses in comparison with what our enemies wanted to admit. There was a revision of the problem of "giftedness" and "difficult childhood" along the lines of "those great creative riches that our new system opens up for the workers and peasants." Methods of pedological research, especially the test method, laboratory experiment, were attacked. The blows were also inflicted on "prostitution" in the field of pedological statistics. A number of serious attacks have been made on the "individualism" of pre-Soviet pedology. Quite eloquently, a parade of targets for persecution was held through the journal "Pedology", and everyone (and "targets" too) were invited to participate in the "hunt". However, the editors of the journal did not take credit for organizing the persecution: "The political core of pedological discussions is by no means a special merit, 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, acute party order "48. Analyzing further the situation in pedology, A.B. Zalkind calls everyone to "repentance" ... Differentiation within the pedological camp requires one of the first stages to analyze my personal perversions ... However, this does not save us from the need to decipher perversions in the works of our other leaders in pedological work ... and our journal must immediately become the organizer and collector of this material. At the review of the pedological and psychological departments of the Academy of Communist Education, P.P. Blonsky announced 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 a corresponding appearance in our journal. We invite comrades to help P.P. Blonsky with articles and inquiries. "Comrades were not slow to respond: the next issue of the magazine publishes an article about Blonsky's mistakes by A.M. Helmont" For Marxist-Leninist Pedology "49,

The journal "Pedology" demanded "repentance" or, which happened more often, blasphemous denunciations of "insufficiently devoted scientists." They demanded "help from comrades" in relation to K.N.Kornilov, S.S. Molozhavy, A.S. Zaluzhny, M.Ya.Basov, I.ASokolyansky, N.M.Schelovanov. 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 socio-political journals, especially in the journal Pod Znamene Marxism 21, 50, 51.

On the other hand, persecution in the form of "scientific criticism" has become not only a way of understanding them scientifically, but also an opportunity to prove their loyalty to the regime. That is why so many "devastating" articles appear at this time, practically in all scientific journals, not to mention socio-political ones. What this "criticism" was like can be demonstrated by the example of M.Ya. Basov, whose persecution ended in a tragic denouement. The journal "Pedology" No. 3 for 1931 publishes an article by M.P. Feofanov "Methodological foundations of Basov's school" 52, which the author himself summarizes in the following provisions: the requirements of Marxist methodology; 2) in their methodological attitudes, they represent an eclectic confusion of biology, mechanistic elements and Marxist phraseology; 3) the main work of M.Ya. Basov "General Foundations of Pedology" is a work that, as a teaching guide for students, can only do harm, since it gives a completely wrong orientation to both research and scientific work on the study of children and adults, as to educate a person's personality; its harmfulness is further aggravated by the fact that Marxist phraseology obscures the harmful aspects of the book; 4) the concept of a human personality, according to the teachings of M.Ya. Basov, is completely inconsistent with the whole meaning, spirit and attitudes towards understanding the historical personality, social class person, which was developed in the works of the founders of Marxism; it is inherently reactionary.

These conclusions are drawn on the basis of the encyclopedic nature of M.Ya. Basov's work in the field of pedology and references in this work to the world's most prominent psychologists and pedologists, who had the "misfortune" to be born not in the USSR - and were not the spokesmen for the ideology of the victorious proletariat. This and similar critics led to a corresponding administrative reaction from the leadership of the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen, where M.Ya.Basov worked. M.Ya.Basov had to write a response article, but it was already published ... posthumously. A few months before his death, M.Ya. Basov left 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, a simple worker, and absurdly dies from blood poisoning. On October 8, 1931 in the newspaper of the institute "For the Bolshevik pedagogical staff" the corresponding obituary was published and the suicide note of M. Ya. Basov was given:

"To students, graduate students, professors and teachers of the pedological department and my staff. Dear comrades!

An absurd accident, complicated by the difficulties of mastering production by our brother, pulled me out of your ranks. Of course, I regret it, because I could still work the way it is necessary for our great socialist country. Remember that any loss in the ranks is compensated by the 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 JV Stalin "On Certain Questions of the History of Bolshevism" to the journal "Proletarian Revolution" revived the "critical" work even more. In all scientific institutions, in response to this message, which called for an end to "rotten liberalism" in science, an ideological purge of personnel took place. On the example of the Herzen State Pedagogical Institute, it is possible to illustrate how it took place: in the newspaper For Bolshevik Pedagogues of January 19, 1932, in the section “Struggle for the Party of Science” it was printed: “Comrade Stalin's letter mobilized to increase vigilance, to fight rotten liberalism. In the order of development, the work was opened and exposed [the listing is in the departments] ... 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 organ of the press - the journal "Pedology" has changed. A.B. Zalkind, despite all his ardor of self-flagellating and scourging of others, was dismissed from the post of the executive editor: his "mistakes" in the first works on sex education were too serious, which he subsequently edited many times opportunistically, and later practically abandoned them , moving on to purely organizational work. However, he did not suit the building that he erected with such stubbornness, although later, right up to the very defeat of pedology, he would nevertheless remain at the helm of pedology. Not only the editorial staff of the journal is changing, but also the direction of work. Pedology is becoming an "applied pedagogical science" and since 1932 has been defined as "a social science that studies the patterns of age-related development of children and adolescents on the basis of the leading role of the patterns of class struggle and socialist construction in the USSR." However, the practical benefit of pedology to education where the work of pedologists was professionally organized was obvious and determined the support of pedology from the People's Commissariat for Education. In 1933, a decree of the board of the People's Commissariat for Education of the RSFSR on pedological work was issued, which determined the directions of work and methods. N.K. Krupskaya and P.P. Blonsky participated in the development of this resolution.

The result of this decree was the widespread introduction of pedology in schools, the slogan appeared: "To each school - a pedologist," which to some extent resembles the modern trend of psychologizing 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 by 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 pedagogical practitioners due to their low qualifications, often caused dissatisfaction among parents and teachers in the field. This dissatisfaction was reinforced by the ideological indoctrination of the population. The differentiation of the school into an ordinary school and for different categories of children with mental retardation "violated" the ideology of equality and averaging of Soviet people, which often reached the point of absurdity in its premises: statements that a child of the most advanced and revolutionary class should be worthy of his position, be progressive 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 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 Commissars of Education who have taken them under their wing.

In this regard, in Pravda and other mass media there are appeals to stop such provocations, to protect Soviet children from fanatical pedologists. Within pedology itself, the campaign of restructuring pedology into a truly Marxist science continues 55,56 But neither in the pedological press itself, nor in the pedagogical press, nor in the corridors of the People's Commissariat for Education, there is no sense of the approaching end. Criticism in the media and from some figures of the People's Commissariat for Education, who call to prohibit pedology or return it to the bosom of the psychology that gave birth to it, are given detailed answers explaining the goals and results of the work, its necessity. One gets the impression that the devastating resolution 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 it is necessary to look for a ban on pedology not only in its content, but also in a certain political game of the "top". N.K. Krupskaya was on the edge of the "bayonet".

A report on the implementation of this resolution was probably presented 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 NK Krupskaya, NI Bukharin, AV Lunacharsky, VM Bekhterev, who actively supported Nadezhda Konstantinovna.

There are also purely internal reasons for this. First of all, there is a 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 thinking, as illustrated, did not happen. The pedagogical dominant and later unjustified sociologization hid the main roots of pedology.

The only correct way, in our opinion, would be the path based on the creation of the doctrine of human individuality, on the genetic predetermination of individuality, on the understanding of how, as a result of the wide possibilities of gene combinatorics, a personality typology is formed in the genotype - environment interaction. Deep insight into the concept reaction rate genotype, a deep and solid science of man could grow. It could have been already then, in the 1920s and 1930s. to get normal scientific development and practice of pedagogical activity, which to this day remains rather an art.

Perhaps the society has not matured enough to understand the goals of science, as it was more than once, as it was in due 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 circle of pedologists, psychologists and educators, as, by the way, and now, although there were first contacts. So, M.Ya.Basov, according to the memoirs of his contemporaries, is a man of high humanitarian culture, leading the "pedological perversions" at the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. AI Herzen, invited the famous scientist YI Polyansky to read the corresponding course. Meanwhile, on the one hand, it was a course in general genetics, and a course in human genetics was needed; on the other hand, it was a one-off event. You can listen to a course in genetics, but not absorb its essence, which happened to M.Ya.Basov himself. 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 are still being felt in the country.

The formula "We cannot wait for favors from nature! It is our task to take them!" And we take, we take, we take ... ignorantly and cruelly, ruining not only nature itself, but also the intellectual potential of the Fatherland. They "took", but did not demand. Did this potential survive after all the selective processes? We think optimistically - yes! Even with the modern outlandish pressure of ecological bungling, one should rely 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 s.

3 Blonsky P.P. Pedology: Textbook for higher pedagogical educational institutions. M., 1934.338 p.

4 Meiman E. Essay on experimental pedagogy. M., 1916.34 p.

5 Thorndike E. Principles of Learning Based on Psychology / Per. from English E.V. Gerje; entry 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. Features of childhood. SPb., 1906.344 p.

10 Basov M.Ya. General foundations of pedology. M .; L., 1928.744 p.

11 Molozhavyi S.S. The science of the child in its principles and methods // Pedology. 1928. No. 1. P.27–39.

12 Molozhavyy S.S... About the program of studying the child // Education in transport. 1925. No. 11. Pp. 27-30.

13 Shapiro Ya.I. Basic questions of pedology // Vestn. education. 1927. No. 5. Pp. 82–88; No. 6. P.67–72; No. 7. P.65–76.

14 Kirkpatrick E. Fundamentals of Pedology. M., 1925.301 p.

15 Gellerstein S.G. Psychotechnical foundations of teaching work at the first stage school // On the way to a new school. 1926. No. 7-8. Pp. 84–98.

16 Basov M.Ya. Methodology for psychological observation of children. L., 1924.338 p.

17 Boltunov A.P. Measuring mind rock 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 Bukhgolts N.A., Schubert A.M .. Tests of Mental Aptitude and School Performance: American Mass Tests. M., 1926.88 p.

20 Zalkind A.B. On the issue of revising pedology // Vestn. education. 1925. No. 4. P.35–69.

21 Zaluzhny A.S. Children's collective and methods of studying it. 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: 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: A report at the ceremonial meeting of the Research Institute of Scientific Pedagogy at the 1st Moscow State University, dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution // Vestn. education. 1927. No. 12. P.68–73.

26 Zalkind A.B. Differentiation on the pedological front // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. Pp. 7-14.

27 A.P. Nechaev Experimental psychology in its relation to school education. SPb .. 1901. 236 p.

28 Neurology, neuropathology, psychology, psychiatry: Sat, dedicated. 40th anniversary of the scientific, medical and pedagogical activity of prof. G.I.Rosselimo. M., 1925.

29 Osipova V.N. V.M. Bekhterev's school and pedology // Pedology. 1928. No. 1. Pp. 10–26.

30 Bekhterev V.M. On 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 in the method of psychological observation. Pg., 1923.234 s.

34 Aryamov I.A. Reflexology of childhood: Development of the human body and characteristics of different ages. M., 1926.117 p.

35 Blonsky P.P. Pedology. M., 1925.318 p.

36 Blonsky P.P. Pedology in the first-stage mass school. M., 1925.100 p.

37 Molozhavyi S.S. A program for studying the behavior of a child or a children's group. M., 1924.6 p.

38 Arkin E.A. Brain and Soul. M .; L., 1928.136 p.

39 Zalkind A.B. Revision of school age pedology: Report at the III All-Russian Congress on preschool education // Worker of education. 1923. No. 2.

40 Nevertheless, AB Zalkind wrote earlier: "Of course, by inheritance of educated traits, 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 // Transport education. 1923. No. 9-10. Pp. 5–8.

44 Bukharin N.I. From speeches at the 1st pedological congress // On the way to a new school. 1928. No. 1. Pp. 3-10.

45 Materials of the 1st All-Union Pedological Congress. M., 1928.

46 Krupskaya N.K. From speeches at the 1st pedological congress // On the way to a new school. 1928. No. 1. Pp. 3-10. Note that these statements by N.K. Krupskaya were not included in the "complete" collections of her works.

47 Lunacharskiy A.V. Materials of the 1st All-Union Pedological Congress. M., 1928.

48 Zalkind A.B. Towards the position on the pedological front // Pedology. 1931. No. 1. P.1-2.

49 Helmont A.M. For Marxist-Leninist pedology // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. Pp. 63–66.

50 Leventuev P. Political perversions in pedology // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. Pp. 63–66.

51 Stanevich P. Against excessive enthusiasm for the method of variation statistics and its incorrect use in anthropometry and psychometry // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. P.67–69.

52 Feofanov M.P. Methodological foundations of the Basov school // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. Pp. 21–34.

55 Feofanov M.P. The theory of cultural development in pedology as an eclectic concept with mostly idealistic roots // Pedology. 1932. No. 1–2. Pp. 21–34.

56 A.P. Babushkin Eclecticism and reactionary slander against the Soviet child and adolescent // Pedology. 1932. No. 1–2. Pp. 35–41.

The development of the human sciences caused at the end of the XIX-beginning of the XX century. the emergence in Europe and America of new experimental methods of 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 the modern researcher E.G. Ilyashenko, based on his work, 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 of the development of mental abilities in children." However, the beginning of a systematic study of children is considered to be the work of the German physiologist G. Preyer "The Soul of a Child" (1882). If the researchers of the history of pedology call Preyer "the ideological inspirer of the pedological movement," then the American psychologist S. Hall is considered the creator of this movement, the founder of pedology, who in 1889 created the first pedological laboratory, which grew into the Institute of Child Psychology. Thanks to Hall, by 1894 in America there were 27 laboratories for the study of children and four specialized journals. He organized annual summer courses for teachers and parents.

The term "pedology" itself appeared in 1893. It was proposed by Hall's student O. Chrisman to denote 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 to give a more complete picture of the age development of the child. Exploring the history of the emergence of pedology, the pedagogical historian F.A. Fradkin wrote that the new century required fundamentally new human qualities. To prepare a healthy, creative, intellectually developed person, able to cope with enormous psychological and physical stress, it was necessary to gain new knowledge about a person and how to prepare him for life. Certain sciences - medicine, psychology, physiology, pediatrics, sociology, ethnography, etc. - approached the child from their own positions. Fragments of knowledge not synthesized into a single whole were difficult to use in teaching and educational work. Therefore, the creation of a new science - pedology, which studies the child holistically at different age stages, was greeted with enthusiasm.

Within the framework of pedology, the physiological characteristics of the development of children, the formation of their psyche, the peculiarities of the emergence and development of the child's personality began to be studied. Pedological research was the prerequisite for the creation of an anthropological foundation of pedagogy.

Having spread in America, the pedological movement came to Europe, where it went deeper, setting itself the task of "developing the scientific foundations of pedagogy," taking up the development of methods for studying children's nature.

Along with the term "pedology" were used as equivalent definitions: childhood psychology, educational psychology, experimental pedagogy, educational hygiene, and others, reflecting the specifics of the chosen direction of research. Having put forward the task of studying the nature of the child, they began to widely use 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 educational psychology, psychological pedology were understood mainly as synonyms.

In Russia, pedology fell on the prepared ground. Ushinsky's ideas about the need for a comprehensive study of the educated person were reflected and continued in pedological research. It can be considered that in Russia pedology has 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 professor Alexander Petrovich Nechaev (1870-1948). In 1901, in St. Petersburg, Nechaev created the first laboratory of experimental pedagogical psychology in Russia, where the psyche of children of different ages was studied. In 1904, pedagogical courses were opened at this laboratory, where students got acquainted with the basics of anatomy, physiology, pediatrics, child psychology, mastered the technique of conducting psychological research. In the same year, a pedological laboratory named after K.D. Ushinsky, who began to be considered "the first Russian pedologist." Students who attended courses at the museum studied the child as a subject of education, received 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 pedagogical courses into the Pedagogical Academy, where persons with higher education studied physiology, psychology, pedagogy, and learned methods of teaching many disciplines. In the same year, the doctor and psychologist V.M. Bekhterev in St. Petersburg organized Pedological and Psychoneurological institutes.

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 laws of the formation and development of the child's body and psyche for successful pedagogical activity, about 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 for 10 years (1906-1916) two All-Russian congresses on educational psychology (1906, 1909) and three All-Russian congresses on experimental pedagogy (1910, 1913, 1916) were held, the main merit in organizations owned by Nechaev. At three subsequent psychological congresses, called congresses of experimental pedagogy, the issues of experimental research of personality, pedagogical problems, school hygiene, methods of teaching certain 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 only of individual e. Functions, was put at the forefront.

A.P. Nechaev called for freeing the school "from the deadening chains of pedagogical methods that are not based on an accurate knowledge of children's nature", since only on condition of full and comprehensive knowledge of the pupil's personality can it be directed and educated. In his work "Contemporary experimental psychology in its relation to the issues of school education" Nechaev wanted to bring together experimental psychology and pedagogy, to link the data of experimental psychology with the most important provisions of modern didactics, to clarify the importance of experimental psychological research methods for the successful development of didactics.

For the whole world, the first decade of the XX century. became a time of expansion and organizational formation of the international pedological movement. Most of the first generation of pedologists in Russia were doctors. They were attracted primarily by "exceptional children", gifted, handicapped, difficult upbringing children. The two-volume work “Anthropological foundations of education. Comparative psychology of normal and abnormal children ”G.Ya. Troshin, in which "the anthropological foundations of upbringing are studied ... on the comparative psychology of normal and abnormal children," which was at that time 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 entrenched in Russian pedagogy. He writes that, in essence, there is no difference between normal and abnormal children: both are people, those and others are children, both of them 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 the growing personality, paying little attention to the social and socio-cultural problems of a person as a subject of education. Over time, the psychological aspect of research began to come to the fore, and gradually pedology began to acquire a pronounced psychological orientation. Pedagogical questions were now not an accidental conclusion from psychological research of childhood, but a starting point for them.

But the development of pedology went along a slightly different line than Ushinsky assumed, formulating 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 upbringing 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 his psychophysiology, did not reach the level of studying a person as applied to his upbringing.

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

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

However, the attitude towards this group of pedologists has changed. They began to be criticized for the fact that they study the child outside the context of environmental factors, they demanded a class approach, evidence that the "proletarian child" is better and taller than children from other social groups, accused of functionalism.

Reflexologists, I.A. Aryamov, A.A. Dernova-Yarmolenko, Yu.P. Frolov. They viewed the child as a machine, an automaton that responds to stimuli from the external environment, and 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 child development, arguing that the child in his ontological development repeats all the main stages of biological evolution and stages of the cultural and historical development of mankind. Thus, biogeneticists believed that infancy and early childhood correspond to the phase of primitive society. The harmony of the physical and mental development of a 9-10 year old child, his belligerence and pugnacity are the reproduction in special forms of the phase of development of human society, reminiscent of the life of the Greek metropolis, and the alienation and gloom of a teenager are an echo of medieval relations between people, youthful maximalism and individualism are the traits of people New time. But the supporters of biology did not take into account the 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 are manifested differently. In addition, the idea of ​​biogenetics came into conflict with the political and ideological principles - to bring peoples to socialism, bypassing the historically established stages of the development of society.

Sociogenetics - S.S. Molozhavy, A.S. Zaluzhny, A.B. Zalkind - focused on the determining role of external factors in the upbringing and formation of the personality. They exaggerated the role of the environment in the upbringing of the individual, thereby belittling the role of upbringing in the process of forming a 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 upbringing denied pedology as a science, making it unnecessary to study the process of a child's development taking into account all internal and external factors.

In the 1920s-1930s. Pedology in Russia developed actively: studies of various age periods of children were carried out (P.P. Blonsky, L.S.Vygotsky, M.M. Rubinstein, 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.Schelovanov). M. Ya. Basov and A.P. Boltunov developed methods of pedological research. Attempts were made to theoretically interpret 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 this time the name of the founder of pedagogical anthropology K.D. Ushinsky was practically not mentioned, the idea of ​​the need to study a 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“ in the head of every teacher there should be a small, but strong enough pedologist. ”He believed that pedological knowledge is necessary for a teacher to make the life of children more joyful, more interesting, to develop their social instincts and abilities , and pedology should become the scientific support of 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 discipline in itself, not the methods of working with children that should bother teachers in the first place, she believed, since the methods of upbringing can contribute to the development of the child, but they can also inhibit 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 “starting 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 a 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, and 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 information related to the life and development of children, but the principle uniting 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 clearly defined content and methodology.

Considering pedology 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 a cyclical process in time, in which individual aspects of the child develop unevenly and disproportionately. Each side of a child's development has its own optimal developmental period.

Calling pedology the science of 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 with the aim of using them 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 the development of the child should begin with the observation of specific facts of this development. But observation must be scientific - expedient, consistent and planned, with the aim of solving a scientific problem. In those cases when it is necessary to learn more deeply the experiences of the studied subject, Blonsky suggests using self-observation (introspection), allowing the studied subject to freely talk about his experiences, and then proceed to asking questions of interest to the researcher. Blonsky considers the use of certain recollections of adults about their childhood to be a peculiar form of application of introspection in pedology. But observation methods, in his opinion, are imperfect. Blonsky also calls an important method of pedology statistics, which provides a quantitative description of mass phenomena.

The testing method has become widespread in pedological research. The test results were considered a sufficient basis for a 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 much attention to the popularization and introduction of the observation method into pedagogical practice. In his work "Methodology for psychological observation of children" (1926), he proposes observation schemes and a methodology for analyzing the empirical data obtained during observation in a natural experiment. Basov's research traces a connection with Ushinsky's ideas about the importance of knowledge of the laws of society in which a person lives and develops.

In general, all pedologists agreed that the subject of pedology study is the child. Pedology studies the child as an integral organism (A.A. Smirnov), as a whole (L.S. 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 did not become 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 those sciences on which it was based, either were still experiencing a new period of their formation (psychology, pedagogy, etc.), or were completely absent in our country (sociology, etc.) ; essentially, the integration of interdisciplinary ties has not yet begun.

The state of pedology was affected by the ideological pressure that had increased by the beginning of the 1930s, the difficult atmosphere that developed in the scientific environment. Blonsky wrote that "the pedologist proposes to replace pedagogy and psychology with his own 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 required for the time. There were not enough trained personnel.

According to modern researchers of the history of pedology, the decline of the pedological movement in Russia took place already in 1931-1932. After 1932, the journal "Pedology" ceases to be published. It was finally banned on July 4, 1936 by a decree of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party. (b) "On pedological perversions in the system of the People's Commissariat for Education." All pedological research was stopped, 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 offices and laboratories were liquidated. The textbooks of P.P. Blonsky "Pedology for Pedagogical Universities", A.A. Fortunatova, I.I. Sokolov "Pedology for pedagogical schools", etc., were removed from all libraries of pedologists' work. Many scientists were repressed.

Among the repressed was Albert Petrovich Pinkevich (1883 / 4-1939) - a prominent scientist who made a worthy contribution to the formation of national pedagogical science. In 1924-1925. published his two-volume "Pedagogy", in which education was considered as the promotion of the development of innate human 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. Pavlova for the development of a number of pedagogical problems.

The new branch of knowledge, pedagogical anthropology, which had arisen as a holistic science about a human being educated, trying to find a continuation in pedology, disintegrated into separate ones: developmental psychology, developmental physiology, and pedagogical psychology. Gone is the main idea on which not only pedology, but also Ushinsky's pedagogical anthropology was based - the idea of ​​a holistic study of man. Researchers began to be guided by the specific, limited task of studying one side or another of the 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 science.

Control questions

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

2. What are the strengths and weaknesses revealed in the process of the formation of pedology as a scientific discipline?

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

LITERATURE

1.Ananev B.G. On the problems of modern human science. 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. Educational anthropology. M., 2003.

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

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

7.Vakhterov V.P. Foundations of a new pedagogy // Izbr. ped. op. M., 1987.

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

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

10 Hesse 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. Zenkovsshy V.V. 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 (first third of the XX 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 (second half of the 19th - first third of the 20th century) // Bulletin of the 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 // Izbr. ped. op. M., 1988.S. 366-376.

19.Makarenko A.S. Collected cit .: In 8 t. M., 1983.

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

21 Pirogov N.I. Questions of life // Izbr. 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 a subject of education. Experience of pedagogical anthropology // Pedagogical works: In 6 volumes. 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. V. V. Chistyakov Anthropological and methodological foundations of pedagogy. Yaroslavl, 1999.

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

Among the scolded sciences, pedology occupies, perhaps, a special place. There are only a few witnesses of its flourishing, but we habitually judge about 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 persistently migrates from one dictionary to another with unchanged remarks. Until recently, a closer and less orthodox view of pedology was perceived as slander against Soviet pedagogy, undermining its very foundations. In the current historical situation, calls have appeared for the revival and development of Russian pedology. We will try to analyze the development of pedology, its ideas, methodology and prospects for revival.

It can be said that pedology had a relatively long history, a fast-paced and complete history.

There are conflicting views on the starting date in the history of pedology. It belongs either to the 18th century. and is associated with the name of D. Tiedemann 1, or by the 19th century. in connection with the work of L.A. Quetelet and timed to coincide with the publication of the works of the great teachers J.J. Russo, Ya.A. Komensky and others. “The wisest educators teach children this,” wrote J.J. 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 man in a child, not thinking about what he is before becoming a man. "

The primary sources of pedology, therefore, are in a rather distant past, and if we take them into account as a basis for pedagogical theory and practice, then - 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 his followers for the first time begin to systematically develop pedagogical psychology 2.

Usually educational psychology was defined as a branch of applied psychology, which deals with the application of data from psychology 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, on the other hand, it should discuss pedagogical provisions from the point of view of their compliance with psychological laws. Unlike didactics and private methods, which address the questions of how a teacher should teach, the task of educational psychology is to find out how students learn.

In the process of the formation of educational psychology, in the middle of the 19th century, an intensified restructuring of general psychology took place. Under the influence of the developing experimental natural science, in particular the experimental physiology of the sense organs, psychology also became experimental. Herbartan psychology with its abstract-deductive method (reduction of psychology to the mechanics of the flow of ideas) was replaced by Wundt's experimental psychology, which studies mental phenomena by methods of experimental physiology. Educational psychology increasingly calls 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 conclusions of general experimental psychology into pedagogy), and XX century. (the subject of experimental research in psychological laboratories is the problems of learning themselves).

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 teaching 4,5.

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

The same necessity grew out of child psychology, which, in contrast to educational psychology with its applied nature, grew out of evolutionary concepts and experimental natural science, posing along with questions about the phylogenetic development of a person the question of his ontogenetic development. Under the influence of discussions in evolutionary theory, 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 divorced from his physical development. As a result, it was proposed to create a new science - pedology, which would be devoid of this drawback and would give a more complete picture of the age-related 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 - is relatively recent and has made significant advances over the past decade."

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

The originality of the isolated science, however, is demonstrated by its identifying apparatus and research methods. As a substantiation of the independence of science, 7 the analysis of its own methods is especially interesting.

Despite the fact that pedology was designed to give a picture of the development of a child and the unity of his mental and physical properties, using a complex, systematic approach to the study of childhood, having previously dialectically solved the problem of the relationship between "bio-socio" in research methodology, from the very beginning priority is given to psychological study the child (even the founder of pedology, St. Hall, considers pedology to be only a part of genetic psychology), and this hegemony is naturally or artificially maintained throughout the history of science. Such a one-sided understanding of pedology did not satisfy E. Meiman, 4 who considers one psychological study of a child 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 child development, to which many psychiatrists have 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: “I must tell the truth: even now, pedology courses are actually a vinaigrette from a wide variety of branches of knowledge, a simple set of information from various sciences, everything that relates to a child. But is such a vinaigrette a special independent science? Of course not ”8. From this point of view, what E. Meiman understands as pedology is a "simple vinaigrette" (albeit 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 satisfying our understanding or at least claiming to be the work of the author himself - P.P. Blonsky, which, therefore, should be "the first stone in the building of true 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 a social order. The first formula defines pedology as the science of the characteristics of childhood. This is the most general formula found earlier in other authors 9.

The second formula defines pedology as "the science of the growth, constitution and behavior of a typical mass child in different periods of childhood." So, if the first formula only points to the child as an object of pedology, then the second says that pedology should study him not from one side, but from different sides; at the same time, a restriction 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 final form to the definition: "Pedology studies the symptom complexes of different eras, phases and stages of childhood in their temporal sequence and depending on different 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 (the fourth formula) remain unsolved.

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 ways, even more complex questions can arise here. Naturally, such a complex object from the very beginning demanded a differentiated cognitive attitude towards itself. In exactly the same way as when studying a person generally for a long time such scientific disciplines as anatomy, physiology and psychology, which study the same subject, have arisen, but each from its own point of view, similarly in the study of the child from the very beginning, the same paths were used, due to which anatomy, physiology arose and developed and early childhood psychology.

With development, the differentiation of this knowledge always increases. In this respect, the scientific knowledge of the child has not yet completed its differentiation to this day. On the other hand, 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 ontogeny and phylogenesis, the provisions of which would guide the research of special sciences, the process of education and training.

In this understanding, pedology was assigned 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 development process of various aspects of child's nature, establishing epochs, phases and stages. It is clear that each of these areas of 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 the limits of his field, to trace not only the 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 ontogenesis. In other words, in one psychological study of a child, the researcher is faced with the task of identifying complex "age-related symptom complexes" in 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 peculiarity of which is only in the fact 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 combining them with each other, in the course 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 ultimate problems of cognition, but are only part of one problem - the problem of man.

Based on these provisions, it was assumed that the boundaries of pedological research are very extensive, and there is no reason to narrow them 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 ontogenesis itself, the change and transition of some states to others. In addition, an important task of the study was something in between, typical, something that immediately covers a wide range of studied properties. A huge variety of all kinds of features - individual, gender, social, etc. - was also material for pedological research. The task of systematization of scientific data in various areas of the child's study was considered the primary task.

The above consideration of the determinant apparatus of pedology can be supplemented with two more definitions of pedology, which were in use until 1931: 1) Pedology is the science of factors, patterns, stages and types of the socio-biological formation of an individual, 16 2) Pedology is the science of genetic processes, about the development of new complicating mechanisms under the influence of new factors, about the breakdown, restructuring, transformation of functions and the underlying material substrates under the conditions of the growth of the child's body. "

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.

The works of S.S. Youthful 12. It 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 situation of the environment with all its sides and functions (2); the restoration of the disturbed equilibrium 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 identification, but also as an act of growth, restructuring and consolidation of the system of behavior (3); it is possible to approach the type of behavior, to its stable, more or less constant moments only by studying a number of integral acts of human behavior, for only they are able to reveal its available fund and its further possibilities (4); 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 excites 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 observation technique was considered very promising among pedologists. In its development, a prominent place belongs to M.Ya. Basov and his school, which worked at the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen. There were two types of methods of pedological work: the method of studying the processes of behavior and the method of studying all kinds of results of these processes. Behavior was considered necessary to study from the point of view of the structure of behavioral processes and the factors that determine them. In doing so, behavior was usually contrasted with experimental research. Such an opposition, 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 the conditions of life situations.

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

Fierce discussion and widespread use of the test methodology in public education in our country (almost every student had to go through a test assessment) led to the fact that today pedology is often remembered in connection with the use of tests with "fear" of finding oneself as a result of testing. A variety of tests have been developed and used for the first time in the United States. The first broad review of American tests in Russian to identify mental giftedness and school success in children was given by N.A. Bukhgolts and A.M. Schubert in 1926.19 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 in 1919-1921. a series of known to this day "National Tests", designed for use in all popular schools in the United States, defined the task of these studies: 1) to help subdivide children of different school groups into smaller subgroups: children of the mentally stronger and mentally weaker; 2) 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) help to reveal those individual reasons due to which individual children cannot adapt to class work and to school life; 4) to promote the cause of vocational guidance of children, at least for the purpose of preliminary selection of those suitable for more highly skilled work 19.

In the mid-20s. tests begin to spread widely in our country, first in scientific research, and by the end of the 20s. are being 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 the Binet tests, are being developed. Testing is carried out in natural conditions for schoolchildren, in the classroom 10,20,21; tests become massive, and the results can be statistically processed. The test data make it possible 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 assessing school performance. An objective and quantitatively more accurate accounting 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 in comparison with the average growth in the success of the 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 learning groups. This contradicts the totalitarian dogmas of egalitarian education, the failure of which has been experienced by several generations.

In American schools, individualization of learning is at the core of the formation of class groups to this day. Our earlier furious, and now increasingly weakening resistance to such an "encroachment" on the integrity of class collectives, the desire to educate a not really socially active person 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, is apparently a consequence of the unitarity of the state, the dominance of authoritarianism, the closeness of the individual, our thinking.

The merit of the test method was “that it transforms pedology from a science, generally and subjectively reasoning, into a science that studies real reality” 3.

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

The criticism was based on a rather strong initial imperfection of the tests. The practice of long-term use of the test method abroad and in domestic psychodiagnostics of recent times has shown the inconsistency of such criticism in many positions and its insufficient validity.

The discrepancies 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 12.20 was fundamentally rejected;
• limited use of tests (in terms of coverage and conditions) was allowed with the mandatory 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 acquaintance with the subject and methods of science, it is necessary to consider the originality of the main stages of its development.

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

Work in this area has also begun to develop in Moscow. G.I. In 1911 Rossolimo founded and supported the clinic of childhood nervous diseases with his own funds, which was 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 on the way of splitting the psyche into separate functions: in order to compile a complete "psychological profile", it is proposed to investigate 38 separate mental functions, ten experiments for each psychological function. The technique of GI Rosselimo quickly took root, was used in the form of a “mass psychological profile”. But his work was also limited only to the psyche, without touching on the biological characteristics of the ontogeny of the child. 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 project of the institute was submitted to the Russian Society of Normal and Pathological Psychology. In addition to the psychological department, the pedological department for experimental and other research was included in the number of departments, and a scientific center for the study of personality was created. In connection with the founding of the department of pedology, V.M. Bekhterev, the idea of ​​creating a Pedological Institute, which existed at first as a private institution (with funds donated by V.T.Zimin), appeared. The director of the institute was K.I. Povarnin. The institute was financially poorly provided, and V.M. Bekhterev had to submit a number of notes and applications to government agencies. 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 to be 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 intellect and morality, and the development of individual self-activity.

Thanks to the indefatigability of V.M. Bekhterev for the implementation of these ideas, a number of institutions were created: pedological and examination institutes, an auxiliary school for the handicapped, an otophonetic institute, an educational and clinical institute for neurotic children, an institute of moral education, a children's psychiatric clinic. He united all these institutions by the scientific and laboratory department - the Institute for the Study of the Brain, as well as the scientific and clinical - Patoreflexological Institute. The general scheme of biosocial study of a child according to Bekhterev is as follows: 1) the introduction of reflexological methods in the field of study of the child; 2) study of the autonomic nervous system and the connection between the central nervous system and the endocrine glands; 3) a comparative study of the ontogenesis of human and animal behavior; 4) study of the full development of the brain regions; 5) study of the environment; 6) the impact of the social environment on development; 7) childhood defectiveness; 8) child psychopathy; 9) neuroses of childhood; 10) reflexology of labor; 11) reflexological pedagogy; 12) 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. Griboyedov, P.G. Belsksgo, D.V. Felderg. The closest collaborators in the field of pedology were at first K.I. Povarin, and then N.M. Schelovanov. For 9 years of the existence of the first Pedological Institute with a very small staff of employees, 48 ​​scientific works were published.

V.M. Ankylosing spondylitis is considered the founder of pedoreflexology in its main directions: genetic reflexology with clinical practice, the study of the first stages of the development of a child's nervous activity, age-related reflexology in preschool and school ages, collective and individual reflexology. Pedoreflexology was based on the study of the laws of temporary and permanent functional relationships of the main sections of the central nervous system and sections 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 criticized the method of "psychological profiles" for excessive fragmentation of the psyche and the conditions in which the experiment was conducted, and proposed his own methodology based on biological principles studying a child, in many respects echoes the methodology of V.M. Ankylosing spondylitis. The same period, however, includes the work of prof. AF Lazursky, deepening the observation technique. In 1918 his book "Natural Experiment" appeared 32. His disciple and follower is the already mentioned prof. M. Ya. Basov.

The study of the anatomical and morphological features of a growing person, along with the work of the school of V.M. Bekhterev, is carried out under the guidance of prof. N.P. Gundobin, Pediatric Disease Specialist. His book "Peculiarities of Childhood", published in 1906, summarizes the results of his work and that of his collaborators, 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-Pedological Department of the 2nd Moscow State University. However, the Central Pedagogical Institute dealt almost exclusively with issues of child psychology; 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 was. And, finally, the Medico-Pedological Institute in 1922 published a collection entitled "Towards Child Psychology and Psychopathology", the very first article of which states that the main task of the named institute is the study of child defectiveness.

In the same 1922, EA Arkin's book "Preschool age" 24 was published, which quite fully and seriously covers the issues of the biology and hygiene of the child and (again, there is no synthesis!) Very few issues of the psyche, behavior.

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

Soon after the congress in Orel, a special "Pedological Journal" began to appear. In the same 1993, the monograph by M.Ya. Basov's "Experience of the methodology of psychological observation" 33, as a result of the work of his school. Being to a large extent the continuation 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 a child, developing a methodology for conducting long-term objective observation of a child in the natural conditions of his life, which makes it possible to fully characterize a living child's personality. This technique quickly won the sympathy of teachers and pedologists and became widely used.

In January 1924, the II neuropsychiatric congress was held in Leningrad. At this congress, pedology took an even more significant place. A number of reports on genetic reflexology by N.M. Schelovanov and his collaborators was devoted to the study of early childhood.

In 1925, the work of P.P. Blonsky "Pedology" 35 is an attempt to form 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 published two more works: "Pedology in the first-stage mass school" 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 promoters of pedology, especially its applied value. The first book provides important material for understanding the learning process for writing and counting. The second provides a theoretical basis for the pedagogical process.

The publication of the brochure by S.S. Molozhavogo: "A program for studying the behavior of a child or children's collective" 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, a significant number of publications had already been accumulated in the USSR, which can be attributed to pedology. However, the majority of publications lack the systems analysis, which M.Ya. Basov spoke about, defining pedology as an independent science. The authors of a small part of studies 10,25,36,38 try to adhere to the synthetic level that allows one 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, affecting his social status, contradictions from the scientific often passed into the ideological sphere, took on a political connotation.

In the spring of 1927, a pedological conference was convened in Moscow at the USSR People's Commissariat for Education (?), 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 value of the team as a factor that forms the child's personality; methods of studying the child (mainly discussion on the method of tests); the relationship between reflexology and psychology, etc.

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

A.B. Zalkind. A psychiatrist by training, a specialist in sex education, whose work was based solely on ideas about the sociogenic development of the individual and on Marxist phraseology.

The popularity of views on the bioplasticity of the organism, especially the child's organism, 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 central nervous system possesses maximum plasticity, and the whole evolution is in the direction of increasing this plasticity. At the same time, there are types of the nervous system that are constitutionally determined. For the practice of upbringing, it is important "the presence of this plasticity, so that heredity is not given the same 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 upbringing and for taking into account in terms of upbringing nervous hygiene, constitutional features of the nervous system" 40.

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

V.G. Stefko. The constitution of an organism is determined by: 1) hereditary factors, acting in the 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 tendency of the decisive 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 and dominated in our country for more than a dozen years.

The second debatable issue was the problem of the relationship between the individual and the collective. In connection with the installation of the Soviet school "to abandon 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 collective. The child in this collective is interesting insofar as he is an endogenous stimulus of the collective ”22.

On the basis of the child's last understanding, 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 an individual child, but only a collective; the teacher learns the individual child through the collective. A good student for a teacher is a good one in a given children's collective, in comparison with other children who make up this collective. Pedagogical practice pushes for collectivism, pedagogical theory - for individualism. Hence the need to "rebuild the theory" 21. Like A.B. Zalkind, prof. A.A. Zaluzhny also advocated a new "Soviet" pedology. Thus, 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 laws of the formation of his personality, while it is necessary to educate in a team, through a team on the system will need collective members - social cogs, spare parts for the system.

The 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 the study of the children's collective. E.A. Arkin, mentioned above, also studied the constitutional types of children in a team. His subdivision of collective members by the tendency toward more extraversion in boys and introversion in girls has drawn strong criticism.

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

1. From the unformed, veiled, the social order has become a clearly formulated, proclaimed, on the basis of which the methodology of science was built. The maximum "bioplasticity" and the decisive transformative influence of the environment from the opinion of individual pedologists turned into the credo of pedology - "revolutionary optimism." An illustration is the statement of N.I. Bukharin, which sounded a little later at the pedagogical congress, which is very indicative for that period, and which the authors risk to cite in full, despite the cumbersomeness of the quotation:

“The adherents of the biogenetic law without any restriction or who are carried away by it suffer from the fact that they transfer biological laws to the phenomena of a social series and consider them identical. This is an undoubted mistake and stands in an absolutely undeniable connection with a number of biological theories (racial theory, the doctrine of historical and non-historical peoples, etc.). We by no means stand on the point of view of abstract equality, abstract people; it is a absurd theory that cries out to heaven because of its helplessness and contradiction with facts. But we are on a course to ensure that there is no division into non-historical and historical peoples ... the theoretical prerequisite for this is what you, pedologists, call the plasticity of the body, those. the ability to catch up in a short time, make up for the lost ... If we stood on the point of view that racial or national characteristics are so stable values ​​that they need to be changed for millennia, 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 framework to the problem of classes. The possessing classes (in their opinion) have the best features, the best brains and other magnificent qualities that predetermine and forever perpetuate their dominance of a certain group of persons, certain social categories and find a natural-scientific, primarily biological, justification for this dominance. Much research on this has not been done, but even if, which I do not exclude, we got better brains from the possessing classes, at least from their cadres than from the proletariat, then in the end does this mean, that these theories are correct? It does not mean that it was so, but it will be different, because such prerequisites are created that allow the proletariat, under the conditions of the plasticity of the organism, to make up for the lost and completely redesign itself, or, as Marx put it, to change its own nature ... this plasticity of the organism ... Then the tacit prerequisite would be a slow change and a relatively small influence of the social environment; the proportion between pre-social adaptations and social adaptations would be such that the center of gravity would lie in pre-social adaptations, and social adaptations would play a small role, and then there would be no way out, the worker would be biologically tied to a hard-labor wheelbarrow ... Therefore, the question about the social environment and the influence of the social environment must be decided in such a sense that the influence of the social environment plays a greater role than is usually assumed ”44.

2. The ideological conjuncture not only opened the green light for all sociologizers of pedology, transforming it from a science that studies a child into a science that describes facts confirming ideological premises, and mainly studies the environment and its impact on the child, and not himself, 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 was backed by unitarity, extended to pedology, where the faster development of science required the unification of scientific forces; however, this explanation was admitted by the "upper classes" and was promoted and carried out among pedologists only under the banner of the primacy of environmental impact on the body.

The first pedological congress was called upon to complete the transformation of pedology, to give a showcase battle to dissent, to unite the scattered ranks of pedologists on a single platform. But if only these tasks stood before the congress, it would hardly have been possible to carry out it according to a scenario reminiscent of the scenario of the famous session of the All-Union Agricultural Academy. There were other tasks before the congress, the relevance of which was understood by all pedologists without exception.

The following scientific problems required urgent analysis and solution:

complete isolation of pedology from pediatrics, and hence the narrow therapeutic and hygienic bias of pediatrics, on the one hand, and underutilization by pedology of the most valuable biological materials available in pediatrics, on the other; lack of communication 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 lack of clarity in the relationship between pedology and the People's Commissariat for Health and the People's Commissariat for Education, the boundaries of their functions were not defined; unplanned research work on pedology on a national scale, drift and disproportion in various areas of research; the lack of a full-time position for pedological practitioners, which was a brake on the creation of their own personnel; insufficient funding for pedological research;

the lack of clarity in the demarcation of the work of pedologists of various scientific and practical training, which led to difficulties in the training of pedologists at higher educational institutions and an overlap in work; the need to create a central all-union pedological journal and society, coordinating and covering the work 45.

Based on the problems posed before the congress, we can conclude that the congress was supposed to be internal and external formalization in pedology. The congress was organized by the scientific and pedagogical section of the Main Academic Council (GUS), the People's Commissariat for Education and the People's Commissariat for Health with the participation of over 2000 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. Bekhterev shocked the congress and postponed its start. V.M. Bekhterev has just finished a psycho-neurological congress and was actively involved in the preparation of a pedagogical one. The congress was absorbed by the death of the academician, many of his employees took off their reports and went home. The first day of the congress was entirely dedicated to the memory of V.M. Bekhterev and his funeral.

The work of the congress was held 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, determining directions and groupings among them, linking pedology with pedagogy and uniting Soviet pedology "into a single collective." On December 28, 29, 30 the plenum of the congress worked; From December 30 to January 4, seven sections worked in special areas. In the work of the plenary sessions of the congress, four main sections were determined: political and ideological problems, general questions of pedology, the problem of the methodology of studying childhood, pedology of labor.

Political and ideological problems were touched upon in the speeches of N.I. Bukharin, A.V. Lunacharsky, speeches by N.K. Krupskaya and the report of A.B. Zalkinda "Pedology in the USSR". N.I. Bukharin mainly spoke about the relationship between pedology and pedagogy. In addition, he tried to smooth out the differences in the methodological plan 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 interesting to cite excerpts from the speeches at the congress of these historical figures who had a direct and indirect impact on the development of pedology.

N.K. Krupskaya: “Pedology is essentially materialistic ... Modern pedology has a lot of shades: someone who simplifies the issue and underestimates the influence of the social environment is even inclined to see in pedology some kind of antidote against Marxism, which is penetrating deeper and deeper into the school; who, on the contrary, goes too far and underestimates heredity and the influence of general laws of development.

A serious drawback that hinders the implementation of the Gusov platform was its pedological lack of development - the lack of sufficiently clear instructions in science about the educational capacity of each age, about its specific features that require age-specific individualization, a programmatic approach.

Even the little that pedology has done in the development of methods of teaching and education shows what tremendous prospects there are, how much it is possible to facilitate learning with the use of the pedological approach, how much can be achieved in educational terms ”46.

A.V. Lunacharsky: “The stronger the link 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-scientifically building its culture state, when it will be thoroughly penetrated by 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 may be 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 to 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 the servant of pedagogy. But this does not mean that the category of the servant is the category of the cook who has not learned to manage. On the contrary, the position of a servant here is such a position when this servant gives directives to the normative scientific discipline she serves. " 44

The main profiling report of the congress was that of A.B. Zalkinda "Pedology in the USSR", devoted to general issues of pedology, which summed up the work done, called the main directions of pedology that existed at this period, institutions engaged in pedological research and practice. The report practically summed up all the studies of childhood over the past decades, 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. Molozhavy, V.G. Shtefko, A.G. Ivanov-Smolensky, M. Ya. Basova, K.N. Kornilov, A.S. Zaluzhny, etc.

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

Some of the speakers demanded that the differences between the schools of V.M. Bekhterev and I.P. Pavlov and "establishing" practical conclusions on the basis of which further pedological work could be carried out.

In-depth study of general and specific issues of pedology took place in seven sections: research and methodological, preschool, preschool, school age (two sections), difficult child, organizational and programmatic.

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

The 30s were years of dramatic events in pedology. A period of confrontation of currents began, which led to the final sociologization of pedology. Once again, a discussion has flared up about what kind of pedology our state needs, whose methodology is more revolutionary and Marxist. Despite the persecution, representatives of the "biologizing" direction (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 sociologizing trend lacked scientific arguments, then other methods were used: the enemy was declared unreliable. Thus, Ye.A. Arkin, "idealist" - N.M. Schelovanov, "reactionary" - the school of V.M. Ankylosing spondylitis.

“On the one hand, we are observing the same old academicism with problems and research methods divorced from the present day. On the other hand, we are confronted with a serene calmness that has not yet been outlived in addressing the most pressing issues of pedology ... practice, but the synthesis is negative, i.e. deeply hostile to the proletarian revolution ”48.

From January 25 to February 2, 1930, the All-Union Congress on 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, autogeneticism, directly directed against the pace of socialist construction; the congress painfully hit the idealistic concepts of personality, which are always an apology for naked individualism; the congress rejected idealistic and biological-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-materialistic principles and on the basis of the requirements of the practice of socialist construction ”48. And if at the First Pedological Congress scientific contradictions were still in progress, then here everything already takes on a political coloring and scientific opponents turn out to be enemies of the proletarian revolution. The "witch hunt" began. In fact, at this congress, the school of reactology (K.N. Bekhterev and his schools ”, and the whole trend was declared reactionary.

In the journal "Pedology" a new heading appeared in 1931 - "Tribune", set aside specifically for exposing "internal" enemies in pedology. Many swore allegiance to the regime, “realized” their “guilt” and repented. Materials are being published with a "radical revision of pre-Soviet age standards" of childhood from the point of view of their much greater capacity and qualitatively different content among the children of the working masses in comparison with what our enemies wanted to admit. There was a revision of the problem of "giftedness" and "difficult childhood" along the line of "those great creative riches that our new system opens up for the workers and peasants." Methods of pedological research, especially the test method, laboratory experiment, were attacked. The blows were also inflicted on "prostitution" in the field of pedological statistics. A number of serious attacks have been made on the "individualism" of pre-Soviet pedology. Quite eloquently, through the journal "Pedology" a parade of targets for persecution was held, and everyone (and "targets" too) were invited to participate in the "hunt". However, the editors of the journal did not take credit for organizing the persecution: “The political core of pedological discussions is by no means a special merit, a“ super merit ”of pedology itself: it here reflects only the stubborn pressure of the class pedological order, which in essence is always directly political, acute party order "48. Analyzing further the situation in pedology, A.B. Zalkind calls everyone to "repentance" ... Differentiation within the pedological camp requires one of the first stages of analysis of my personal perversions ... However, this does not save us from the need to decipher the perversions in the works of our other leaders in pedological work ... and our journal must immediately become the organizer and collector of this material. At the review of the pedological and psychological departments of the Academy of Communist Education, P.P. Blonsky declared 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 a corresponding appearance in our journal. We invite comrades to help P.P. Blonsky with articles, inquiries ”. "Comrades" were not slow to respond: the next issue of the magazine publishes an article about the mistakes of A.M. Blonsky. Helmont "For Marxist-Leninist Pedology" 49,

The journal "Pedology" demanded "repentance" or, more often, blasphemous denunciations of "insufficiently devoted scientists." They demanded "help from 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 Pedologiya itself, but also in socio-political journals, especially in the journal Pod Znamenem Marxism 21, 50, 51.

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

These conclusions are drawn 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 world's most prominent psychologists and pedologists, who had the "misfortune" to be born not in the USSR - and were not the spokesmen for the ideology of the victorious proletariat. This and similar critics led to a corresponding administrative reaction from the leadership of the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen, where M.Ya. Basov.

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, a simple worker, and absurdly dies from blood poisoning. On October 8, 1931, the corresponding obituary was published in the newspaper of the Institute "For Bolshevik Pedagogues" and the suicide note of M.Ya. Basova:

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

An absurd accident, complicated by the difficulties of mastering production by our brother, pulled me out of your ranks. Of course, I regret it, because I could still work the way it is necessary for our great socialist country. Remember that any loss in the ranks is compensated by the 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 from I.V. Stalin "On some questions of the history of Bolshevism" in the journal "Proletarian revolution". In all scientific institutions, in response to this message, which called for an end to "rotten liberalism" in science, an ideological purge of personnel took place. On the example of the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute. A.I. Herzen can be illustrated how it took place: in the newspaper For Bolshevik Pedagogues of January 19, 1932, in the section “The Struggle for the Partisanship of Science”, it was printed: “Comrade Stalin's letter mobilized to increase vigilance, to fight rotten liberalism. In the order of development, the work was uncovered and exposed [the list goes 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 organ of the press - the journal "Pedology" has changed. A.B. Zalkind, despite all his ardor of self-flagelling and scourging of others, was dismissed from the post of executive editor: his "mistakes" in the first works on sex education were too serious, which he subsequently edited many times opportunistically, and later practically abandoned them, switching to pure organizational work. However, he did not suit the building that he erected with such stubbornness, although later, right up to the very defeat of pedology, he would nevertheless remain at the helm of pedology. Not only the editorial staff of the journal is changing, but also the direction of work. Pedology is becoming an "applied pedagogical science" and since 1932 has been defined as "a social science that studies the patterns of age development of children and adolescents on the basis of the leading role of the patterns of class struggle and socialist construction in the USSR." However, the practical benefit of pedology to education where the work of pedologists was professionally organized was obvious and determined the support of pedology from the People's Commissariat for Education. In 1933, a decree of the board of the People's Commissariat for Education of the RSFSR on pedological work was issued, which determined the directions of work and methods. N.K. Krupskaya and P.P. Blonsky 3.

The result of this decree was the widespread introduction of pedology in schools, the slogan appeared: "To each school - a pedologist" - which to some extent resembles the modern trend of psychologizing 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 by 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 pedagogical practitioners due to their low qualifications, often caused dissatisfaction among parents and teachers in the field. This dissatisfaction was reinforced by the ideological indoctrination of the population. The differentiation of the school into an ordinary school and for different categories of children with mental retardation "violated" the ideology of equality and averaging of the Soviet people, which often reached the point of absurdity in its premises: statements that a child of the most advanced and revolutionary class should be worthy of his position, be progressive 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 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 Commissars of Education who have taken them under their wing.

In this regard, in Pravda and other mass media there are appeals to stop such provocations, to protect Soviet children from fanatical pedologists. Within pedology itself, the campaign of restructuring pedology into a truly Marxist science continues 55,56 But neither in the pedological press itself, nor in the pedagogical press, nor in the corridors of the People's Commissariat for Education, there is no sense of the approaching end. Criticism in the media and from some figures of the People's Commissariat for Education, who call to prohibit pedology or return it to the bosom of the psychology that gave birth to it, are given detailed answers explaining the goals and results of the work, its necessity. One gets the impression that the devastating resolution 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 it is necessary to look for a ban on pedology not only in its content, but also in a certain political game of the "top". On the edge of the "bayonet" was N.K. Krupskaya.

A report on the implementation of this resolution was probably presented 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, there is a 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 thinking, as illustrated, did not happen. The pedagogical dominant and later unjustified sociologization hid the main roots of pedology.

The only correct way, in our opinion, would be the path based on the creation of the doctrine of human individuality, the genetic predetermination of individuality, on the understanding of how, as a result of the wide possibilities of gene combinatorics, a personality typology is formed in the genotype - environment interaction. Deep insight into the concept reaction rate genotype, a deep and solid science of man could grow. It could have been already then, in the 1920s and 1930s. to get normal scientific development and practice of pedagogical activity, which to this day remains rather an art.

Perhaps society has not grown to understand the goals of science, as it was more than once, as was the case 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 circle of pedologists, psychologists and educators, as, by the way, and now, although there were first contacts. So, M.Ya.Basov, according to the recollections of contemporaries, is a man of high humanitarian culture, leading "pedological perversions" at the Leningrad State Pedagogical Institute named after A.I. Herzen, invited the famous scientist Yu.I. Polyansky for reading the corresponding course. Meanwhile, on the one hand, it was a course in general genetics, and a course in human genetics was needed; on the other hand, it was a one-off event. You can listen to 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 are still being felt in the country.

The formula “We cannot wait for favors from nature! It is our task to take them! " And we take, we take, we take ... ignorantly and cruelly, ruining not only nature itself, but also the intellectual potential of the Fatherland. They "took", but did not demand. Did this potential survive after all the selective processes? We think optimistically - yes! Even with the modern outlandish pressure of ecological bungling, one should rely 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 (edit)

1. Rumyantsev N.E. Pedology. SPb., 1910. P.82.
2. Herbart I. Psychology / Per. A.P. Nechaeva. SPb., 1895.270 s.
3. Blonsky P.P.
4. Meiman E. Essay on experimental pedagogy. M., 1916.34 p.
5. Thorndike E. Principles of Learning Based on Psychology / Per. from English E.V. Gerje; entry 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. Features of childhood. SPb., 1906.344 p.
10. Basov M.Ya. General foundations of pedology. M .; L., 1928.744 p.
11. Molozhavyi S.S. The science of the child in its principles and methods // Pedology. 1928. No. 1. P.27-39.
12. Molozhavyy S.S... About the program of studying the child // Education in transport. 1925. No. 11. S.27-30.
13. Shapiro Ya.I. Basic questions of pedology // Vestn. education. 1927. No. 5. S.82-88; No. 6. S.67-72; No. 7. S.65-76.
14. Kirkpatrick E. Fundamentals of Pedology. M., 1925.301 p.
15. Gellerstein S.G. Psychotechnical foundations of teaching work at the first stage school // On the way to a new school. 1926. No. 7-8. S.84-98.
16. Basov M.Ya. Methodology for psychological observation of children. L., 1924.338 p.
17. Boltunov A.P. Measuring mind rock 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. Bukhgolts N.A., Schubert A.M .. Tests of Mental Aptitude and School Performance: American Mass Tests. M., 1926.88 p.
20. Zalkind A.B. On the issue of revising pedology // Vestn. education. 1925. No. 4. P.35-69.
21. Zaluzhny A.S. Children's collective and methods of studying it. M.; L., 1931.145 p.
22. Zaluzhny A.S. For the Marxist-Leninist formulation of the problem of the collective // ​​Pedology. 1931. No. 3. P.44-51
23. Blonsky P.P. Pedology: 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: A report at the ceremonial meeting of the Research Institute of Scientific Pedagogy at the 1st Moscow State University, dedicated to the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution // Vestn. education. 1927. No. 12. S.68-73.
26. Zalkind A.B. Differentiation on the pedological front // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. S.7-14.
27. A.P. Nechaev Experimental psychology in its relation to school education. SPb .. 1901. 236 p.
28. Neurology, neuropathology, psychology, psychiatry: Sat, dedicated. 40th anniversary of the scientific, medical and pedagogical activity of prof. G.I.Rosselimo. M., 1925.
29. Osipova V.N. V.M. Bekhterev's school and pedology // Pedology. 1928. No. 1. S.10-26.
30. Bekhterev V.M. On 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 in the method of psychological observation. Pg., 1923.234 s.
34. Aryamov I.A. Reflexology of childhood: Development of the human body and characteristics of different ages. M., 1926.117 p.
35. Blonsky P.P. Pedology. M., 1925.318 p.
36. Blonsky P.P. Pedology in the first-stage mass school. M., 1925.100 p.
37. Molozhavyi S.S. A program for studying the behavior of a child or a children's group. M., 1924.6 p.
38. Arkin E.A. Brain and Soul. M .; L., 1928.136 p.
39. Zalkind A.B. Revision of school age pedology: Report at the III All-Russian Congress on preschool education // Worker of education. 1923. No. 2.
40. Nevertheless, AB Zalkind wrote earlier: "Of course, by inheritance of educated traits, 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. S.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 // Transport education. 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. Note that these statements by N.K. Krupskaya were not included in the "complete" collections of her works.
46. Lunacharskiy A.V. Materials of the 1st All-Union Pedological Congress. M., 1928.
47. Zalkind A.B. Towards the position on the pedological front // Pedology. 1931. No. 1. C.1-2.
48. Helmont A.M. For Marxist-Leninist pedology // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. S.63-66.
49. Leventuev P. Political perversions in pedology // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. S.63-66.
50. Stanevich P. Against excessive enthusiasm for the method of variation statistics and its incorrect use in anthropometry and psychometry // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. S.67-69.
51. Feofanov M.P. Methodological foundations of the Basov school // Pedology. 1931. No. 3. S.21-34.
52. [Obituary to M.Ya.Basov] // For the Bolshevik pedagogues. 1931.3 oct.
53. [Editorial article] // Pravda. 1934.14 Aug.
54. Feofanov M.P. The theory of cultural development in pedology as an eclectic concept with mostly idealistic roots // Pedology. 1932. No. 1-2. S.21-34.
55. A.P. Babushkin Eclecticism and reactionary slander against the Soviet child and adolescent // Pedology. 1932. No. 1-2. S. 35-41.

Science) is a trend in psychology and pedagogy that arose at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries, due to the penetration of evolutionary ideas into pedagogy and psychology, the development of applied branches of psychology and experimental pedagogy.

Amer. psychologist S. Hall, who created in 1889. 1st pedological laboratory; the term itself was invented by his student - O. Krisment. But back in 1867. K. D. Ushinsky in his work "Man as a subject of education" anticipated the emergence of pedology: "If pedagogy wants to educate a person in all respects, then it must first know him in all respects." In the West P. were engaged in S. Hall, J. Baldwin, E. Meiman, W. Preyer, and others. The brilliant scientist and organizer A.P. Nechaev. A great contribution was made by V.M. Bekhterev, who organized in 1907. Pedological Institute in St. Petersburg. The first 15 post-revolutionary years were favorable: a normal scientific life was going on with heated discussions, in which approaches were developed and growing pains inevitable for young science were overcome.

The subject of Pedology, despite numerous discussions and theoretical developments of its leaders (A.B. Zalkind, P.P. Blonsky, M.Ya.Basov, L.S.Vygotsky, S.S. Molozhavy, etc.), is not clearly defined was, and attempts to find the specifics of P., not reducible to the content of related sciences, were unsuccessful.

Pedology sought to study the child, at the same time to study it comprehensively, in all its manifestations and taking into account all influencing factors. Blonsky defined Pedology as the science of age-related development of a child in a certain socio-historical environment. The fact that P. was still far from ideal is explained not by the erroneous approach, but by the enormous complexity of creating an interdisciplinary science. Of course, there was no absolute unity of views among pedologists. Still, 4 basic principles can be distinguished.

1. The child is a complete system. It should not be studied only "in parts" (something in physiology, something in psychology, something in neurology).
2. The child can be understood only considering that he is in constant development. The genetic principle meant taking into account the dynamics and trends of development. An example is Vygotsky's understanding of the egocentric speech of a child as a preparatory phase of the inner speech of an adult.
3. The child can be studied only taking into account his social environment, which affects not only the psyche, but often also the morphophysiological parameters of development. Pedologists have worked a lot and quite successfully with difficult teenagers, which was especially important in those years of prolonged social upheavals.
4. The science of the child should be not only theoretical, but also practical.

Pedologists worked in schools, kindergartens, various teenage associations. Psychological and pedological counseling was actively carried out; work with parents was carried out; the theory and practice of psychodiagnostics was developed. In L. and M. there were in-you P., where representatives of different sciences tried to trace the development of a child from birth to adolescence. Pedologists were trained very thoroughly: they received knowledge in pedagogy, psychology, physiology, child psychiatry, neuropathology, anthropology, sociology, and theoretical studies were combined with everyday practical work.

In the 1930s. criticism began of many of the provisions of P. (problems of the subject of P., bio- and sociogenesis, tests, etc.), two resolutions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks were adopted. In 1936. P. was defeated, many scientists were repressed, the fates of others were mutilated. All pedological in-you and laboratories were closed; P. were erased from the curricula of all universities. Labels were generously pasted: Vygotsky was declared an "eclectic", Basov and Blonsky - "propagandists of fascist ideas."

The decrees and the subsequent landslide "criticism" barbarously, but masterfully perverted the very essence of P., blaming her adherence to the biogenetic law, the theory of 2 factors (see. Convergence theory), fatally predetermining the fate of the child by a frozen social environment and heredity (this word should have sounded abusive). In fact, V.P. Zinchenko, pedologists were ruined by their value system: “Intellect occupied one of the leading places in it. They valued primarily work, conscience, intelligence, initiative, nobility. "

A number of works by Blonsky (for example: Development of a schoolchild's thinking. - M., 1935), the work of Vygotsky and his collaborators on child psychology laid the foundation for modern scientific knowledge about the mental development of a child. The works of N.M. Shchelovanova, M.P. Denisova, N.L. Figurina (see. Revitalization complex), created in pedological institutions by name, contained valuable factual material that was included in the fund of modern knowledge about the child and his development. These works formed the basis for the current system of education in infancy and early age, and Blonsky's psychological research by Vygotsky provided opportunities for the development of theoretical and applied problems of developmental and educational psychology in our country. At the same time, the real psychological meaning of research and their pedological design for a long time did not allow separating one from the other and appreciating their contribution to psychological science. (I.A. Meshcheryakova)

Adding : Undoubtedly, state. arbitrariness in relation to domestic P. played a decisive role in its tragic end, but attention is drawn to the fact that in other countries Pedology eventually ceased to exist. P.'s fate as an instructive example of a short-lived project of complex science deserves a deep methodological analysis. (B. M.)

Psychological Dictionary. A.V. Petrovsky M.G. Yaroshevsky

Dictionary of Psychiatric Terms. V.M. Bleikher, I.V. Crook

there is no meaning and interpretation of the word

Neurology. Complete explanatory dictionary. Nikiforov A.S.

there is no meaning and interpretation of the word

Oxford Explanatory Dictionary of Psychology

Pedology- infantile speech.

subject area of ​​a term