ГУМАНИТАРНОЕ ОБРАЗОВАНИЕ В АСПЕКТЕ МЕЖКУЛЬТУРНОГО ДИАЛОГА КРЫМА

Introduction

Topicality of development of humanitarian education strategy in the Crimea is conditioned by a complex and unique ethnocultural situation on the peninsula, by a number of historical and political factors. Ethnic population of the Crimea has radically changed several times from the end of XVIII century for a present time. According to the data of the last state population census of 2001, the representatives of more than 125 ethnic groups live in the Crimea (excluding Sevastopol). It is the unique polyethnicity of the region, as well as acute necessity of saving and development of national culture that served as a basis for revealing features and complications connected with multicultural character of the Crimea and searching for solution of existing sociocultural problems. Actualization of content and methodology in the system of education today is primarily connected with the shift in emphasis from the primary task of accumulation of knowledges by trainees to a principally new priority formation of students’ culture of thought and sensation, humanitarian development of personality.

This theme is the subject of interdisciplinary analysis where different aspects of this sociocultural phenomenon are investigated with the help of theoretical and methodological approaches of humanities. This research requires an address to philosophical, culturological, sociological, ethnologic, politological, pedagogical and historical works. The problem of communication and education in a philosophical, psychological and socially-psychological context was covered in the works by

T. Grushevitskaya, N. Kazarinova, V. Kunitsyna, B. Parygin, V. Pogolypa, V. Popkov, A. Sadokhin. The works of the Crimean scientists, such as O. Smirnova, M. Aradzhioni, Ye. Chorny, A. Shorkin, V. Buryak, Ye. Boytsov, V. Gankevich,

E. Muratova, Z. Khayreddinova, etc., deserve close attention [1],[2],[6],[7]. In spite of noticeable interest of many scientists to the problem of formation of interethnic communication culture, the questions related to the development of strategy of intercultural dialogue as a factor of consolidation of polyethnic space have not been properly analysed in modern scientific literature, which requires further deep study of this problem.

Theoretical Background of Study

It is difficult to imagine a more representative sphere of cultural creativity than humanitarian education. Education in this context is a process of objectivization of human creative forces which reveals already existing and gives rise to the new cultural forms, senses and values. They are, in their turn, estimated, transformed and included in the own unique spiritual world of a person, that makes him a competent participant of cultural polylogue and allows to master and produce new cultural experience.

In the previous works we analysed the ethno-transformational processes of inter-ethnic integration (based on unviolent, gradual and historically natural integration) and uniting, which resulted in formation of Slavonic and Turkic groups on the peninsula with specific for the Crimean region features. We succeeded in revealing a number of typological features of Slavonic and Turkic groups of ethnoses. Indeed, each of these two groups of ethnic communities demonstrates the internal unity and integrity, which is confirmed by the following characteristics: high degree of language closeness among ethnoses of the group; one religion practised by representatives of different ethnoses (or inside one group), high degree of similarity of other symbolic and aesthetic constituents of culture; mutual positive stereotypes among ethnoses and subethnoses of the group; long mutual cultural influence within the framework of a single historical paradigm; common valued orientations for the whole group of ethnoses; a common level of socio-economic and socio-political development and ideals; appearance of common self-consciousness of ethnogenetic closeness; common global cultural aspirations [5, 291].

The conducted analysis allows to draw a conclusion about existence in the Crimea of two basic macroethnoses – the Crimean Slavs and Crimean Turkic people. To a great extent these macroethnoses reflect the cultural features of different types of civilization with their specific characteristics. The Crimean Turkic people have clearly marked orientation to civilization of eastern type with characteristic traditionalism and correspondingly a cyclic character of culture development, with the dominance of relation “state-society” over the relation “society-state”, marked foreign-policy purpose of civilization development. One more characteristic feature of culture of the Crimean Turkic people, peculiar to eastern civilization on the whole is a considerable role of religion in all spheres of life. The researchers of the Crimean Turkic culture note: “In the modern Crimea the Islamic religion becomes a more influential regulator of the family everyday relations for considerable part of people. Norms of morality, principles and traditions based on Islamic religion sometimes more effectively regulate the behaviour of moslems of the peninsula than legal norms” [1, 379].

This quotation speaks about the Crimean Tatars, accordingly about the Islam, but it is also referred to the Turkic ethnoses, traditionally practising other religions. The Crimean Turkic people inherit traditional for all eastern civilizations components

which have been establishing for centuries in co-operation with Chinese, Indian, Byzantine, Arab-Islamic and other cultures. The eastern civilization which combined so different features is steady and flexible.

We hold the view that the culture of the Crimean Slavs is paradigmatically close to the civilization of western type, thus eclectically includes features of the eastern civilization, though they are not basic. The main argument in favour of such point of view is including the Crimean Slavs into the European paradigm of modern, which during two and a half centuries determined the vector of development of western civilization. This vector involves orientation to dynamic lifestyle, values of technological development, intensive actualization of all spheres of human activity.

So, the West is associated with progress, innovations, modernization, and the East – with conventional experience, conscious disassociating from the values of progressism; the western civilization orients itself to changes in the field of individual interests, the eastern – to the higher value of universal harmonic order, contemplative aspiration to understand the bases of the universe, not disturbing its order. The image of the West is democracy, civil society, ideas of liberalism, while the image of the East is an axiomatic duty of an individual to space, state, family, etc. Thus, the western civilization traditionally demonstrates the priority of personal, individual beginning, and the eastern one – of collective domestic beginning. This list of antinomies can be continued, but it is necessary to understand and take into account that, for example, at contrasting rationalism of the West with the eastern mysticism the western spirituality and mysticism are not absolutely excluded. In turn, in the culture of the East it is impossible to deny progress, innovativeness. Naturally, the reality is not identical to the given conventional chart of interrelation of civilizations, it is more complex and richer. In this case we consider the West and the East as not only steady systems of values, but, mainly, as different vectors and trends of progress of sociocultural experience of humanity.

Despite the difference of civilization orientations of the Crimean Turkic people and Crimean Slavs, these macroethnoses developed in the integrated geographical and historical space of the Crimean peninsula. In the Slavonic languages turkisms firmly took roots, in the Crimean toponymy the connection of Turkic and Slavonic languages is clearly traced; mutual influence of these two beginnings in folk creation, in everyday life of Crimeans, etc., does not cause any doubt.

In addition, with the change of cultural and historical paradigm, which began in the middle of XX century and, to our opinion, has been taking place until now, changes in the directions and principles of development of macroethnoses of Slavs and Turkic people in the Crimea have also started. A new stage is related to establishment of a modern period of civilization development – the period of global civilization becoming. The East and West as a pair category, expressing simultaneously both the unity of culture and its dichotomy has essentially changed today.

Thus, it is senseless to talk about integration or synthesis of cultures of the Crimean Slavs and Crimean Turkic people, in spite of community of historical fates, common economic and political space. The only form of community implies a metacivilizational form which, however, hardly levels ethnocultural originality of these macroethnoses.

The most perspective direction of this work is considered to be orientation towards intercultural dialogue as the means of distributing ideas of the world culture, formation of polycultural thinking aimed at preserving natural integrity of different cultures in the process of their cooperation and mutual enrichment. The only basis is dialogueness, “opposing all forms of monological dogmatism leading quite often to the tragic consequences” [3, 402].

The researchers of dialogue in philosophy of culture paid attention to the fact that in a dialogue of cultures a dialogic character of truth itself is assumed.

An intercultural dialogue today acts as a worthy alternative to the ethnoevolutional processes and limited version of the program of multiculturalism. It is an attributive condition of modern positive cultural creativity, which provides and is provided by spiritually-cultural understanding and co-operation in the inter-ethnic integration on the basis of dialogic interaction of traditions and innovations.

What concerns the research of dialogue of tradition and innovation, it is difficult to imagine a more representative sphere of cultural creativity than humanitarian education. In this context it is a process of objectivization of creative forces of man, when already acting cultural forms, senses and values are revealed and new ones are created. They are, in their turn, estimated, transformed and included into the own unique spiritual world of a person, that makes him a competent participant of cultural polylogue and allows to master and produce new cultural experience.

Humanitarian education fulfils the function of transmission of culture, and in this respect it comprises a great number of factors determining the formation of personality, namely a traditional institutional system, as well as a complex of social interactions, not directly connected to educational establishments. While researching sociodynamics of culture, the French sociologist A. Mol wrote that a man learns culture from social surroundings which partly acculturize him, and partly enrich him by it (culture) [4], thus proving the fact that culture and education are mutually determined. It is naturally to make the conclusion that humanitarian education (its content, principles and methodology) should meet the requirements of core and structure of current culture. Being one of the terms of self-identification and self-realization of individual, it belongs to key factors of modern cultural creative process.

Speaking about sociocultural space of the Crimea, it is necessary to say that the relations between two macroethnic groups of the Crimea, i.e., the Crimean Slavs and Crimean Turkic people have been exacerbated. The situation is being aggravated by the obvious implanting of stereotypes in mass media, by weak economic stuation on the peninsula, lack of objective information, acute necessity in development of education, culture and civil activity of repatriates.

Silence – Stratedy for Indirect Communication

We carried out sociological research on this topic, which subject of interest was cross-cultural literacy and cross-cultural competence of students of higher school. As a result of questionnaire the following conclusions were made. Unfortunately, in a polycultural region the modern students of the Crimea still have a low level of inter-ethnic tolerance and ethnocultural literacy. The degree of susceptibility to the ethnocultural stereotypes formed by decades is high. In the educational environment the situation does not promote integration. Thus, it is evident that formation of culture of inter-ethnic communication is a major task in the polycultural Crimean society, and the prosperity of the region depends on solving this problem.

In spite of introduction of a number of projects aimed at development of inter-cultural education, their orientation is obviously ethnic, but tools are mainly classic-pedagogical. In addition there is a marked contradiction between an actual sociocultural situation requiring ethno-national orientation in teaching and insufficient competence of teachers. In contrast to existing projects, the cultural creative model of ethno-national education offered by us is directed at solving two basic global problems: to promote harmonization of inter-ethnic relations in the educational environment of the Crimea; to promote consolidation of civil nation, formation of integral over-ethnic cultural space of the Crimea within the framework of Russia. The solving of these problems is planned by means of introduction into the Crimean higher schools of the program (theoretic-creative educational complex) “Inter-Cultural Dialogue”. The main feature of the program is its orientation towards cultural creative approach and basing on multicultural strategy of culture dialogues.