The ideologization of pedagogical education of parents in the USSR (1930s – mid-1950s): historical and pedagogical analysis.

Shik Sergey PhD in Pedagogy Associate Professor of the Department of Social Pedagogics at Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after V. P. Astafyev 660077, Russia, Krasnoyarskii krai, g. Krasnoyarsk, ul. Vzletnaya, 20, aud. 311 shik.krsk@mail.ru Other publications by this author

Introduction

The problem of pedagogical education of parents in the context of modernization of the Russian education system is one of the most relevant topics of our time. According to the "Strategy for the Development of education in the Russian Federation 2015-2025", "The Concept of state family Policy in the Russian Federation for the period up to 2025", family support, including parental education, is a priority area of social policy. Pedagogical education (work, propaganda, universal education) of parents is an important part of public education.

Parents have always relied on the experience, knowledge and traditions passed down by the older generation in raising their children. The preparation of parents is seen as a solution to the problems of family problems and the improvement of parental care for the upbringing of a prosperous generation. Pedagogical education, i.e. the transfer and dissemination of knowledge about parenting, is designed to help a parent build a meaningful, friendly strategy for interacting with children, and ultimately feel the fullness of life and the joy of parenthood.

However, as soon as the fulfillment of parental duties turns out to be significant for the state, in order to create the right (new) person, it may seek to force certain educational practices that do not allow criticism. Then there is an ideologization of pedagogical education, i.e. saturation of the transmitted information with certain material that is useful and suitable for the government or a political organization, but not necessary or even harmful to parents.

The historical period from the 1930s to the mid-1950s is the heyday of the totalitarian regime, which prescribes loyalty and gratitude to the authorities. Ideological education in the USSR assumed not only the formation of beliefs, but also "the suggestion of a sense of helplessness, absolute dependence on the state"^{[28, p.248]}. The education of parents was based on the idea of their weakness, lack of independence and inability to overcome the whims and disobedience of children. It seems important to investigate the peculiarities of educating parents in conditions of totalitarianism, highlight the dangers of ideologizing education, and draw lessons for future generations.

The issues of education are partly considered in the research of: parental culture (L.A. Gritsai ^[11]), ideological regulation of family life (A.E. Zvonareva ^[14]), education of parents in a preschool institution (Y. Gradskova ^[37]), the cultural aspect of growing up (C. Kelly ^[38]) and others.

At the same time, this problem has clearly not been sufficiently investigated, there are no generalizing critical works for the specified period.

Research methods: theoretical analysis of sources, comparative analysis, generalization.

Sources of research: normative legal acts in the field of education, upbringing, development of family relations, works of teachers, psychologists, materials of the periodical pedagogical press, in particular, the magazine "Family and School", books for parents.

The main part.

Initially, the Bolsheviks relied on Engels' thesis about the death of the family, but later revised their radical view. "The issue of working with parents is a big and important issue,– N.K. Krupskaya pointed out. – It is necessary to take care of the level of knowledge of the parents themselves, to help them in self-education, arming them with a well-known pedminimum"^{[19, p. 159]}. The position of the teacher to a certain extent influenced the change in attitude towards the family.

At the turn of the 1920s and 1930s, the leaders realized that it was necessary not to destroy the family, but to work with it.  

The resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) "On curricula and regime in primary and secondary schools" dated August 25, 1932, dedicated to strengthening the "conscious discipline of students", laid the foundations of pedagogical education as an ideological work. The document decided: "to develop a number of measures for systematic pedagogical propaganda, immediately starting the compilation and publication of popular pedagogical literature for parents."

Another resolution of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) "On pedological perversions in the system of People's Commissars" dated July 4, 1936 accused pedologists of conducting "countless examinations among schoolchildren and their parents in the form of meaningless and harmful questionnaires, tests, etc., long ago condemned by the party." The prohibition of pedology also meant the prohibition of studying the opinions of parents: questionnaires, testing, etc.

At the same time, isolation from the West was growing, and people tried to free themselves from "alien" practices. Even N.K. Krupskaya exclaimed (1937): "Why did Pestalozzi, Froebel, Montessori, the entire European and American experience disappear? He is very useful to us" ^{[20, p.360]}.

In such circumstances, the behavior of the parents had to fully comply with the party's guidelines, helping to create a new person out of the child.

Pedagogical education included the provision of general information about children: age characteristics, health promotion, help with homework, leisure activities, etc. At the same time, ideological content was given a dominant character. They were opposed: a new happy world for the rotten old one, the Soviet family as a single labor collective for the old bourgeois family with a discord between parents and children, Soviet pedagogy for the Western one. To oppose the West, the word "communist", "socialist" or "conscious" was added to pedagogical phenomena. For example, "communist upbringing", "socialist attitude to work", etc. Ideologization manifested itself not only in glorification of the leaders and the Communist Party, but also in subordination to the institutions of power. In the field of pedagogy, such an attitude was considered to be "the education of conscious discipline in children" – the antipode of compulsory discipline based on fear in bourgeois society.

Working with the family was accompanied by a strict condition: "parents are obliged to educate their children under the guidance of the school" ^{[15, p.485]}. Parents' failure to comply with the law on universal education led to sanctions in accordance with a special letter from the prosecutor of the RSFSR "On bringing to justice those responsible for violating the law on Universal Compulsory Education" (1937) [cit. according to: 9, p.9].

 The main forms of educational work with the family were at the same time strictly controlled by the school: visits to students' families, conversations with parents, inviting them to an educational institution, classroom parent-teacher meetings, a pedagogical seminar, parents' day ^{[25, pp. 572-574]}.

The following statement conveys the totalitarian spirit of control well: "Teachers should not know exactly what a child is dreaming about, but they should certainly be aware of the conditions in which he sleeps" [cit. according to: 35, p.214]. Therefore, parents, especially problem children, were afraid of teachers and avoided them [ibid., p. 216].

Along with this, there were also extracurricular forms of education and control, for example, a report at meetings at institutions (housing and rental cooperative associations) ^[36]. Parents at the place of residence reported on the upbringing of their children, took social obligations to improve family life. 

The organization of parent universities can be considered the highest form of pedagogical education. The belief has spread that parents constantly indulge the whims of their children. According to C. Kelly, pampering was a kind of subversive practice directed against state control over the family ^{[38, pp. 380-382]}. Outside of state care, parents are helpless and raise pampered children, so constant systematic work on curricula is necessary with them.  Thanks to experienced teachers, students (social workers) have better control over the students' studies and everyday life. As the activist parent argued: "We will oppose the inept parenting techniques used by parents with a well-structured scientifically proven system that has already given positive results in practice" [cit. according to: 14, p.58].

We will reveal this position on the basis of significant works and speeches by teachers and parents of that time.

In the "Book for Parents" (1937), lectures on family education (1937 – 1939), A.S. Makarenko argues that the ideal family is a large family collective, an economic collective associated with the performance of various work duties by children. The school is the organizing principle, runs the family ^{[23, p.186]}. The success of family education is determined by the parents' fulfillment of their "civic duty to Soviet society" ^{[22, p.16]}. A child's whim is a "genuine scourge of the family collective" [ibid., p. 201]. For this reason, it is necessary to strengthen parental authority, educate children to take care of their parents ^{[23, p. 191]}, normalize strictness and affection [ibid., p. 144], "make sure that children do not accumulate the experience of disobedience, so that the family regime is not violated" [ibid., p. 79]. It is necessary not just obedience, but discipline, so that the child not only obeys the order, but "actively strives to fulfill it as best as possible" [ibid., p. 70], it is necessary to "educate the child's ability to patiently and without whining perform unpleasant work" [ibid., p. 110]. Makarenko opposed recipes and pedagogical tricks, but still pointed out the desirability of being able to give orders, work with a voice, and have a "parade on your face." It is unacceptable that "their voice reflects their mood," but must speak in such a way that everyone listens to it [ibid., p. 187]. In addition, it is necessary to change the voice when presenting your demands: to give "the most elusive shades of tone, starting from the tone of the directive and moving on to the tones of advice, guidance, irony, sarcasm, request and hint" ^{[22, p. 202]}. Or in another place: "you let such notes into each method that it will be a drop of poison if it is necessary for someone who needs to feel it" ^{[23, p.187]}. In general terms, the scheme can be represented as follows: family collective – regime – parental authority – parental order – regime – discipline of children.

One of the mothers, a follower of Makarenko, at his lecture (July 22, 1938) gives an example of strict compliance with parental orders. The father does not take his son for a ski trip (the child is guilty):

"T. L. <...> The father said no. My son begged and cried, but we never took him skiing, despite the fact that it is useful for him. We believe that one should always keep one's word.

Makarenko. This is extremely interesting" [ibid., p. 158].

In 1941, a manual for parents "Raising children in the family" was published (ed. by M.V. Sarychev), written by a team of authors, continuing and complementing the ideas of A.S. Makarenko. The upbringing of new Soviet people is proclaimed the duty of parents. This requires: a friendly family team, unity of approaches to parenting, and proper relationships. Labor and political education, regime, order, discipline, intransigence to whims are the main directions of education for parents. "Children should be obedient and respectful to their parents" ^{[3, p.81]} – the most important rule of family life. In addition, children must comply with all school requirements. Parents should strengthen the authority of Soviet institutions, participate in their work, and develop in children a "caring and loving attitude to school" [ibid., p. 83]. They, together with the class teacher, must "precisely establish the range of responsibilities that children of a certain age should accurately perform." To instill in the child "the consciousness of the unconditional obligation to fulfill the requirements." Systematic control of the child forms in him the idea that "not a single offense can be hidden from the discerning eyes of parents" [ibid., p.96]. In case of misconduct, the following penalties can be used: for minor misconduct – a remark (refused to help his younger brother tie his shoelaces, did not clean the bed, etc.), reprimand or censure – for more serious sins (rude attitude to mother or father, refusal to teach lessons, insulting younger brothers and sisters, careless attitude to things Finally, the most serious punishment is to stop talking to the child for a while or deprive him of pleasure (the daughter offended the mother with an insulting word) [ibid., pp. 98-99]. Physical punishment was not allowed.

In this manual, parents also share (including students from parent universities) their parenting experiences. For example, one mother proudly tells:

"With regard to <...> sleep, I tried to maintain the regime. It was interesting to observe when at 9 p.m. the children took turns declaring that they wanted to sleep. At school age, when the children were toddlers, I could put them to bed, go to the theater at 8 o'clock or to a meeting until 12 at night. Only once in all the time was Kostya found awake, he decided to look for his mother in the dark" [ibid., p. 245]. As you can see, the feelings of the child are ignored, and the value is considered to be the unquestioning fulfillment of the requirements of the parent and compliance with the regime.

Of the post-war publications, we note E.A. Arkin's manual "Parents on education" (1949). Like previous authors, he pointed out the need to develop a Marxist-Leninist worldview, considered parenthood as a "public duty to the state" ^{[1, p. 14]}, insisted on the importance of the duties of the younger generation in relation to parents. At the same time, the scientist's attitudes suggest a softer attitude towards the child, attention to his experiences. Most parents "do not try to delve into the inner world of their children" [ibid., p. 8], they do not know their interests and needs well enough. In education, not only the requirements are important, but also taking into account the "moral ideas of children" [ibid., p.210].

 Despite some of Arkin's humanism, in the post-war period, the ideological impact on the family is increasing. Even during the war – in 1943 – the "Rules for Students" were adopted ^[26], which required unquestioning obedience to the orders of the headmaster and teachers (paragraph 3) and obedience to parents (paragraph 17). Classroom teachers were obliged to explain these "Rules" to parents in order to educate the discipline of children ^{[16, p.143]}.

The interaction between the school and the family was based on previous principles, but the formalism of this cooperation became obvious. For example, an analysis of the plans of educational work of schools showed that from year to year the same topics are discussed by the same staff, parents do not sufficiently understand the meaning of pedagogical advice, scientific guidance and generalized experience ^{[30, p.6]}.

Parent committees in residential buildings also continued to work. A school teacher seconded to the parent committee of the house supervised its activities. In such conditions, it was easier to perform the function of control, "to give information about the family of interest, about the living conditions of students, their behavior in the yard, in the house" ^{[12, p.35]}.

Since 1946, the magazine for parents "Family and School" began to be published, indicating that the most important task of the family is to educate people "subordinating their interests to the interests of the Soviet state" ^{[13, p.3]}, and "parents themselves must actively and consciously participate in socialist construction" ^{[8, p.5]}.

The network of parent universities is expanding, where, along with traditional lectures, evenings are held where heroine mothers and mothers of Heroes of the Soviet Union share their experiences of family education ^{[31, 32, 34]}. In 1945, the Presidium of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the RSFSR approved "Pedagogical readings" ^[33]. Since 1946, the central pedagogical lecture hall of the APN has been operating in Moscow. The classes included the following topics: Lenin and Stalin on the upbringing of children, ideological and political, labor, moral, physical education, etc. ^{[27, p.39]}. The purpose of education is a cheerful, healthy, devoted to the Motherland and the party child.

To do this, the family should not be locked into a narrow world of philistine interests, "constant ideological growth and political activity of the parents themselves" is imperative ^{[17, p.6]}, they were supposed to be Bolsheviks in education, i.e. "constantly feel their direct responsibility for the proper upbringing of children" ^{[29, p. 20]}.

Exaggeration of the role of family, domestic work, narrowly domestic, personal interests, according to N.K. Goncharov, is "apolitical and unworldly" ^{[10, p. 374]}. However, teaching a child to work from an early age, the transition from the simplest work processes to more complex ones ^{[17, p.4]}, was considered as the most important element of education.

According to Yu. Gradskova, the Soviet interpretation of childhood was based on "the idea of children as helpers, and not as the main source of positive emotions of adults" ^{[37, p. 274]}, which is typical for Western practices.

Attention was drawn to the fact that parents should protect children and young people from alien Western influences, "the humiliating disease of kowtowing to bourgeois reactionary culture", explain to the teenager the fallacy of "obsequious attitude towards foreigners", since it can "poison his consciousness with the corpse poison of decaying bourgeois ideology" ^{[5, p.4]}.

Because of this, in particular, the population of modern America lacks meaningful goals in life, it "experiences oppressive boredom and longing" ^{[18, p.2]}, and the children of the West themselves are sufferers and victims.

A special subject of propaganda is the education of the highest qualities necessary in the construction of communism. In the late 1940s, the magazine "Family and School" published a series of articles devoted to such qualities as: determination ^[6], sense of duty ^[7], courage ^[4], endurance ^[2], will and character ^[18] and others more private. The popularization of these properties, according to I.V. Kukulin, led to the fact that children began to be endowed with the ability to "educate themselves independently, but in accordance with the guidelines received from adults" ^{[21, p.165]}. However, in the conditions of the dictate of the state over the individual, the pressure of the collective, the lack of the idea of autonomy, weak reflection, underestimation of the importance of the child-parent dialogue, it was problematic to form these characteristics. Rather, such education could only lead to an increase in adult authoritarianism, intolerance of a different point of view, a decrease in parental empathy and an absolutization of the value of children's obedience.

The last lengthy work of the specified period "On the upbringing of a schoolboy in a family" (1954) ^[24], published under the heading "Pedagogical advice to parents". The work indicates that the school prepares children "for the construction of a communist society" [ibid., p. 8]. Parents should actively help the school in this work by providing systematic and comprehensive monitoring. The already well-established topics are considered: the care of the Communist Party for the younger generation, the education of communist morality, the authority of the parent, discipline and others.

So, an ideologized system of educating parents has developed, aimed not so much at transferring full-fledged knowledge about education, as at forming patterns of behavior of parents and children necessary for the ruling regime.

Conclusion.

The historical and pedagogical analysis of the strategic foundations of pedagogical education of parents in the 1930s and 1950s allows us to draw the following conclusions:

1. Since the beginning of the 1930s, the formation of pedagogical education of parents has been taking place in our country. In the conditions of a totalitarian regime, in the absence of empirical studies of parenthood, the isolation of the country, the education of parents was ideologized. Under the guidance of the school, the parents had to educate a new person, the builder of a communist society.

2. The ideal family was represented by an economic team with a regime, order, and unquestioning discipline. The forms of work with the family were at the same time the control over the behavior of the family. Enlightenment presupposed the development of ideologically "correct" parenting techniques with conscious discipline of children.

3. In the post-war years, pedagogical education, while maintaining the same features, was improved: "Rules for students" were developed, a special magazine for parents "Family and School" was published, and the network of parent universities was expanding. The ideological growth of the parents themselves was associated with countering Western influences and educating children of the highest qualities necessary in the construction of communism.

4. The result of the ideologization of parents' education was the spread of disrespect for the child, increased authoritarianism of parents, ignoring feelings, and disruption of communication between parents and children.

Thus, the conducted research allows us to come to the understanding that the imposition of educational ideas that are not subject to criticism turned parents into mechanical executors of power directives, led to a deterioration of child-parent relations, hindered the dialogue of generations.