![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
achilles-brazil.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
psyhistorikЗдравствуйте, psyhistorik.
Today I was reading my Portuguese version of this document:
ЦК ВКПб «О педологических извращениях в системе наркомпросов» (1936).
It’s dated from July, 5, 1936 - I think the correct is "4 июля 1936" - It’s not a translation from Russian but from an Argentine edition. The author said that it is "integral". There are 8 pages, no much characters per page - at first glance, comparing with Russian it's ok.
It’s very instructive. But my question is about 2 two other documents quoted at the end:
«Признать неправильными
[1] постановления Наркомпроса РСФСР об организации педологической работы
и
[2] Постановление СНК РСФСР от 7 марта 1931 года «Об организации педологической работы в республике».»
Can you point me how can I find any copy of these two documents? Do you already have a topic about this matter? What exactly was the contents of these “постановления” – who was the responsible for their redaction an approbation by the Soviet Government, etc.?
Thank you very much.
Today I was reading my Portuguese version of this document:
ЦК ВКПб «О педологических извращениях в системе наркомпросов» (1936).
It’s dated from July, 5, 1936 - I think the correct is "4 июля 1936" - It’s not a translation from Russian but from an Argentine edition. The author said that it is "integral". There are 8 pages, no much characters per page - at first glance, comparing with Russian it's ok.
It’s very instructive. But my question is about 2 two other documents quoted at the end:
«Признать неправильными
[1] постановления Наркомпроса РСФСР об организации педологической работы
и
[2] Постановление СНК РСФСР от 7 марта 1931 года «Об организации педологической работы в республике».»
Can you point me how can I find any copy of these two documents? Do you already have a topic about this matter? What exactly was the contents of these “постановления” – who was the responsible for their redaction an approbation by the Soviet Government, etc.?
Thank you very much.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-02-10 10:30 pm (UTC)i'll try to make a copy. authors are hidden so far, thou there are guesses probably. we will know eventually. same thing happened in the journal - around that time unsubscribed articles start appearing, kinda expressing everybody united position.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-10 10:42 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-10 10:44 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-10 11:24 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-10 11:30 pm (UTC)sure we know smth:
Ðб оÑганизаÑии педологиÑеÑкой ÑабоÑÑ Ð¿Ð¾ линии оÑганов наÑодного обÑазованиÑ. ÐÑем кÑай-и облоно (пÑиказ ÐаÑкомпÑоÑа Ñ. Ð. ÐÑбнова*) (#605/0605 Ð¾Ñ 6/V 1931 г.)
but in reality so many things are missing from the picture, that one can not make any meaningful conclucions yet (see recent obituaries discussions).
* - didn't even check, because it was kinda obvious to me what had happened to him, but for your benefit:
Ð 1925 г. â ÑекÑеÑаÑÑ Ð¦Ð Ð¿Ð°ÑÑии. Член ÐЦÐÐ, ЦÐРСССР.
С ÑенÑÑбÑÑ 1929 года â ÐаÑком ÐÑоÑвеÑÐµÐ½Ð¸Ñ Ð Ð¡Ð¤Ð¡Ð .
17 окÑÑбÑÑ 1937 г. аÑеÑÑован. 1 авгÑÑÑа 1938 г. военной коллегией ÐеÑÑ Ð¾Ð²Ð½Ð¾Ð³Ð¾ ÑÑда СССРпÑиговоÑен к ÑаÑÑÑÑÐµÐ»Ñ Ð¸ в ÑÐ¾Ñ Ð¶Ðµ Ð´ÐµÐ½Ñ ÑаÑÑÑÑелÑн.
(http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%91%D1%83%D0%B1%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2,_%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B4%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%B9_%D0%A1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%B5%D0%B2%D0%B8%D1%87)
no subject
Date: 2010-02-10 11:46 pm (UTC)But who was at СÐРРСФСРat this times?
I am insisting, because this was in a relatively short time... from 1931 to 1936... But, what happens in order to Pedology favorable official declarations be published already in 1931? It is not around this time that things began to stay worse?
no subject
Date: 2010-02-10 11:54 pm (UTC)this is an interesting topic, i was going to write about the last issue of pedology, which gives some clues to internal happenings.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-11 12:05 am (UTC)They talk about the Pedology question:
"The pedologists were criticized, however, for "cosmopolitism," as shown by too many citations of westerns research, and for "mechano-Lamarkianism," which was the absence of dialectical analysis and class approach. Intelligence testing, used in pedology, had addressed the problem of individual differences and by this contradicted the ideology of "mutual equality." STALIN'S SON VASSILY RECEIVED LOW IQ SCORES, and that was the last straw..."
This episode really happens? Something curious. Not much intelligent from the part of the pedologist who applies the test...
no subject
Date: 2010-02-11 12:17 am (UTC)stalin's son vassily prob did attend experimental detsky sad (more psychoanalytical than pedological), and i think it even was discussed here once, but "low iq scores" is most likely is a myth, even if true. vassily could have receive some low scores, but it would not be a reason for stalin to differentiate him in some way. he didn't do that even when his another son (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakov_Dzhugashvili) life was at stake.
and read this from wiki:
When Vasily was 17, he expressed his wish to join the Kacinsc Aviation School, a well-known school in the Soviet Union. Lavrenti Beriaâs intercession was necessary, because of Vasily's poor school grades. At the beginning, Vasily Stalin was given special treatment (single-occupancy room, meals in the officersâ mess, weekly leave permissions), but his father personally intervened and Vasily lost all the privileges.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-11 12:23 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-11 12:37 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-11 12:44 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-11 12:57 am (UTC)sure it can, thats one puropose of psychodiagnostics. ussr did not accept any tests, because they are useless from lsv school perspective. pedologists did use iq tests but without proper standartization (at that time statistics was still an unknown science in europe) and reseived results were one of reasons behind pedology destruction.
no subject
Date: 2010-02-11 01:02 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-11 01:10 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-11 01:11 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-11 01:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-11 01:31 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-02-11 01:56 am (UTC):)
Now I must localize in Portuguese too... because I read this book in 2004, and did not attempted well to this important point... This is a question to many reflections... I hope that was not a censorship problem of the translators, sometimes some kinds of "censorship" can occurs just in an interpretation process and choices of the words - to stay equal the "author's thinking"... I had seen "arguments" like this... But in this case can be my memory problem indeed.
Van der Veer
Date: 2010-02-11 05:07 am (UTC)This Bauer, 1955 is this:
Bauer, R. A. (1955). Der neue Mensch in der sowjetischen Psychologie. Bad
Nauheim: I. M. Christian-Verlag.
Is this reliable??? I really have interest in to know the content of this "decree". Even more if it is just at same year when two other paedology favorable decrees are published... Because if van der Veer version would be defensible, emerges a question: 1) Or the official paedology then was not so "progressivist" already in 1931... 2) Or the Soviet State was not so omniscient and omnipotent for the public education questions, yet... - I can ask for one more question: what was the *official* situation of paedology, and paedologists before 1931? There was some legal regulation for their jobs at schools, in that times in which educational Blonsky's ideas "were developed in close collaboration with Lenin's wife Krupskaya (1869-1939) and minister of education Lunacharsky (1875-1933)" (p.39)? What we have about this? See, for us here in Brasil some historical distinctions are important, because there is a common sense that there was the boom of paedology and with the 1936 decree things changes more radically... but what about these decrees from 1933?
...
Re: Van der Veer
Date: 2010-02-11 05:11 am (UTC)Re: Van der Veer
Date: 2010-02-11 05:46 am (UTC)On September 5, 1931, a decree was issued restoring discipline to schools, introducing the three R's in place of the project method, and reenstating a system of examinations and grading.
but here he is a bit of track. the decree is about not enough полиÑÐµÑ Ð½Ð¸Ð·Ð¼. there is not much about examinations and grading. moreover unsigned article which follows поÑÑановление explains:
ÐеÑÑ Ð¿ÐµÐ´Ð°Ð³Ð¾Ð³Ð¸ÑеÑкий пÑоÑеÑÑ ÑводилÑÑ ÑолÑко к навÑкам, ÑвоеобÑазной Ð¸Ñ ÑÑиаде: "ÑиÑаÑÑ, пиÑаÑÑ Ð¸ ÑÑиÑаÑÑ". ÐÑÑÑда ÑеÑÑоманиÑ, "ÑкпеÑименÑалÑÐ½Ð°Ñ Ð¿ÐµÐ´Ð°Ð³Ð¾Ð³Ð¸ÐºÐ°" ÐалаÑникова и дÑ. ЦРоÑÑÐ¶Ð´Ð°ÐµÑ Ñакой ÑоÑмалÑнÑй Ð¿Ð¾Ð´Ñ Ð¾Ð´... (pedology, 4/1931, p.11)
pedology was good until trotsky, krupskaya and lunacharsky were in power. trotsky left, krupskaya was moved away, and lunacharsky was switched for bubnov in september 1929. after that pedology time was ticking away pretty fast.
btw, just couple weeks ago, saw a court decision (http://www.seattlepi.com/dayart/PDF/mathtextruling_20100204.pdf) about the same меÑод пÑоeкÑов (inquire based education) prohibited in 1931 =)
Re: Van der Veer
Date: 2010-02-11 06:06 am (UTC)this table is from pedology 1/1931, p.92. looks like a good situation to me. =)
Re: Van der Veer
Date: 2010-02-11 01:11 pm (UTC)I don't know what is RRR... Reading, Repetition and Remembering????
All this is very, very, instructive... Hmmm: including this interesting court decision. But, we can really understand that is even the "same method" spite different historical cultural contexts, and social situations? At a first glance such a "inquired based education" seems to be a good thing. But the motives of Soviet State that time are exactly same motives of the court in 2009?
Thank you very much.
Re: Van der Veer
Date: 2010-02-11 02:37 pm (UTC)rrr (http://www.newlambton.ps.education.nsw.gov.au/images/murals/3rs.jpg) - is now muralized.
it is similar method and there are similar motives behind court decision. soviet state made a good decision at that time, but лÑÑÑее вÑаг Ñ Ð¾ÑоÑего.