Society of Russian Literature. A society of Russian literature was created, headed by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill

811 delegates took part in the congress, of which more than 200 were representatives of branches of the NGO "ASSUL" from 72 regions of the Russian Federation.

The Congress of the Society of Russian Literature opened on May 25, Philologist's Day, at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov.

Meetings of 8 sections were held here. Lyudmila Vasilyevna Dudova, chairman of the CC of the NGO "ASSUL", became one of the moderators of the section "Russian language and literature at school", Roman Anatolyevich Doshchinsky, chairman of the executive committee of the NGO "ASSUL", and Elena Robertovna Yadrovskaya, chairman of the RO NGO "ASSUL" in the Leningrad region. represented our organization at the section “Professional associations of Russian scholars in the life of society.”

Photos

We invite you to familiarize yourself with the impressions of one of the participants of the Congress, Alexander Vladimirovich Zharenov, Chairman of the RO NGO "ASSUL" in Murmansk region.

The Society of Russian Literature was created in March 2016 on the initiative of the President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin.

The First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature was chaired by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'. 811 delegates from 72 regions of the Russian Federation took part in the congress. The Murmansk region from literature teachers was represented at the congress by Alexander Vladimirovich Zharenov, a teacher of Russian language and literature of the branch of the State Educational Institution of the Moscow Region VSOSH No. 18, chairman of the regional branch of the Association of Teachers of Literature and Russian Language.

The Congress of the Society of Russian Literature opened on May 25, Philologist's Day, at Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov. The delegates and guests of the congress were representatives of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, prominent scientists, members of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Education, politicians, teachers of leading Russian universities, school teachers from Russian regions, writers and cultural figures, representatives of the parent community, public organizations, students and clergy. Divided into sections, the participants discussed issues related to the state of linguistic culture in the country, preserving the richness of the Russian language and literary heritage, with strengthening the status of the Russian language, with the problems of teaching the Russian language and literature at all levels of education, with the Concept of teaching the Russian language and literature.

Moderators of the section “Russian language and literature at school” (from left to right V.V. Kirichenko, director of gymnasium No. 1520 in Moscow, L.V. Dudova, chairman of the Association of Teachers of Literature and Russian Language LLC)

A.V. Zharenov

Alexander Vladimirovich took part in the section “Russian language and literature at school”. 157 people took part in the work of the section, 11 speeches were heard. In his speech, Alexander Vladimirovich shared his experience in the participation of students in project and research activities, the participation of language teachers of the region in events held by the Association of Teachers of Literature and the Russian Language, and also outlined the problems associated with teaching the Russian language and literature in evening schools.

Speech by A.V. Zharenova on the topic “Research and project activities schoolchildren as a means of increasing motivation to study the Russian language and literature"

Speech by N.V. Tretyak, First Deputy Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

On May 26, a plenary meeting was held in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions, at which, along with the participants and delegates of the congress, the Chairman of the State Duma of the Russian Federation S.E. Naryshkin, Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation D.V. Livanov, Chairman of the State Duma Committee of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on Security and Anti-Corruption I.A. Yarovaya, head of the LDPR faction in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation V.V. Zhirinovsky, assistant to the President of the Russian Federation A.A. Fursenko, Vice-President of the Chinese Association of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature Zheng Tiu, Chairman of the Moldavian Society of Teachers of Russian Language and Literature T.P. Mleczko.

Opening the plenary session, Lyudmila Alekseevna Verbitskaya, President of the Russian Academy of Education, St. Petersburg state university greeted Patriarch of Moscow and All Kirill. The Patriarch, making a welcoming speech to the guests and delegates of the congress, spoke about the history of the existence of societies of lovers of Russian literature in Russia, and noted that such a representative meeting is being held today for the first time. Therefore, the creation of such a society in Russia is not an accident: today the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature is being created as the successor to the Society of Lovers Russian literature 1811. The patriarch also spoke about the main mission and goal of creating such a society today - the study and popularization of Russian literature and the Russian language, as well as increasing the role of philological disciplines in education and educational processes at all levels of the national school - from primary to higher education.

Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill, L.A. Verbitskaya

Then there were speeches by L.A. Verbitskaya, Chairman of the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation S.E. Naryshkin and the Minister of Education and Science of the Russian Federation D.V. Livanova. In their reports, the speakers agreed on the need for a unified state exam, since it gave children from different regions of the country the opportunity to become students at leading Russian universities, the need to introduce an oral part in the Unified State Exam in the Russian language, and the variability of programs in the Russian language and literature. The speakers also noted that in recent years there has been a focus on Special attention Russian language and literature from the government of the Russian Federation and the public. To date it has been created a large number of organizations and federal programs that support the promotion of the Russian language and literature. S.E. Naryshkin noted that it is also necessary to create regional representative offices of the Society of Russian Literature, similar to the Russian historical society to strengthen and popularize the Russian language and literature, as well as preserve linguistic diversity in the Russian Federation.

Speech by S.E. Naryshkina

Speech by D.V. Livanova

During the plenary session, President of Russia V.V. arrived in the Column Hall of the House of Unions. Putin. The head of state addressed the participants of the Congress with a welcoming speech. In his speech, the President noted that this is not the first time that issues of the Russian language and literature have been discussed, but today they deserve most attention, since now we are talking, first of all, about preserving national identity, national traditions, originality, and historical continuity. The head of state especially emphasized that the issue of preserving the Russian language, literature and culture in general is a matter of national security and preserving one’s identity in the global world.

Speech by Russian President Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin

At the end of the speech of the President of the Russian Federation, reports from the moderators of the sections of the Congress on the meetings held the day before were heard, and the participants in the plenary meeting unanimously approved the composition of the presidium of the Society of Russian Literature. The Society’s plans include a teachers’ congress and a parent forum, at which a coordinated position will be developed on the most pressing issues relating to the Russian language and literature.

I would like to express my gratitude to the organizers of the First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature for a carefully thought-out and well-organized event!

A.V. Zharenov,
Chairman of RO ASSUL of the Murmansk region

Murmansk region media about the event

• Press service of the Federal Penitentiary Service of Russia for the Murmansk region http://51.fsin.su/news/detail.php?ELEMENT_ID=257312
• Information Agency Nord-news

On May 26, 2016, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' spoke at the plenary session of the Congress of the Society of Russian Literature.

Dear participants of the First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature! I warmly greet you all.

I would like to note right away: although, as we know from Russian history, societies of lovers of Russian literature were created earlier, such a representative collection, dedicated to issues Russian language and Russian literature, held for the first time. In 1811, two societies were created in Russia, uniting people who were not indifferent to the fate of Russian literature. One of them, the literary and scientific “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” at Moscow University, existed until 1930. Another, “Conversations of Lovers of the Russian Word,” which united St. Petersburg writers, unfortunately disbanded already in 1816, after the death of its founder Gabriel Derzhavin.

The “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” at Moscow University, which included, in addition to scientists and writers, statesmen and public figures, outstanding sons of our Fatherland, worked for the benefit of the people of their country for almost 120 years. During this time, the Society published many outstanding artistic and folklore works, scientific works and dictionaries. Thanks to his active work, the teaching of philological disciplines in Russia has reached an unprecedented flourishing, and issues of the Russian language and literature have always been in the center of public attention and discussion.

In 1992, on the initiative of academician Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev, the “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature” was revived. But a few years later, after the death of Dmitry Sergeevich and the energetic secretary of the Society, Raisa Nikolaevna Kleimenova, it, alas, practically ceased its activities.

And now all of us, who are not indifferent to the fate of Russian culture, have united for the sake of preserving our national heritage - the Russian language and the great Russian culture. The main goal of the newly formed Society of Russian Literature, as before, is the study and popularization of Russian literature and the Russian language, as well as increasing the role of philological disciplines in educational processes at all levels of the national school - from elementary to higher education.

We, representatives of the older generation, remember our school teachers with gratitude and are deeply grateful to them for their professionalism and the high quality of teaching that they demonstrated. Of course, the education system in the Soviet Union was largely ideological. But this is precisely the strength and greatness of Russian literature: it is capable of putting the light of truth, goodness and love into the hearts of readers, overcoming any peculiarities of the ideological context, including ideological blinders, “ iron curtains"and other harmful external circumstances.

The great Russian classical literature, which so providentially reached its most powerful age at the beginning of the tragic twentieth century, took on another important mission, a task beyond the capabilities of any other humanitarian sphere at that time: it fulfilled the purpose of preserving for posterity not only Russian culture, but also our national history.

Finally, Russian literature - albeit contradictory, but steadily and courageously - has always led its reader to the knowledge of the highest spiritual and moral values, to the knowledge of the highest meaning of life, to the knowledge of God.

In this regard, I recall the remarkably precise words of Dmitry Sergeevich Likhachev about the role and significance of literature and philology in general: “Literature is not only the art of words. This is the art of overcoming words.<…>Understanding a text is an understanding of the entire life of one’s era behind the text. Therefore, philology is the connection of all connections.<…>It underlies not only science, but also all human culture. Knowledge and creativity are formed through the word, and through overcoming the rigidity of the word, culture is born.”1

It is no coincidence that, perhaps not fully consciously rationally, but vividly feeling in their hearts, many people of the middle and older generation considered literature teachers to be their favorite teachers at school. But today the same literary scholars, our contemporaries - both young teachers and teachers of advanced age - are desperately sounding the alarm bell, seeing and realizing more clearly than others the danger of the situation that has developed in the current philological education.

The opinion that young people read little these days has become a common truth for many. But this fact, fortunately, is highly controversial. Firstly, not all young people read a little. And secondly, this problem is not insoluble.

I remember how in the 1950s and 60s they were worried that film adaptations of literary works would lead to teenagers stopping reading, just as they now say that computers and adapted books will completely wean young people from reading the classics. Of course, this can happen if the teacher does not instill a taste for literature and reading. That is why in our computerized times, the role of a mentor is especially important - a person who transfers knowledge from heart to heart, from mind to mind. Indeed, in this communication there is not only a rational, but also a spiritual, emotional principle. I think everyone who is present here has long forgotten the content of the lectures of their professors in higher school. And when we say: “We had a wonderful professor,” the last thing we think about is the content of these lectures. The very fact of meeting a wonderful person is remembered, and not only on a rational level.

Therefore, the role of the teacher cannot be overestimated. He does not simply transmit information, as a computer does, he refracts what is said through himself and transmits part of his soul, his mind to those who listen to him. And if this is a sincere person, if he is a devotee of his craft, then nothing can compare in terms of the power of persuasion and influence on the audience with the words of a true master of his craft - a teacher.

And here, in my opinion, lies the root of the problem. Of course, the range, level and quality of reading of a growing, emerging person is influenced by the modern rhythm of life, and introduction to Internet culture, and the innovations of the electronic age. But the main problem It seems to me that the school, society and the state, in the end, do not always take care with due diligence and responsibility to instill in young people a taste for reading, teach them to understand and love literature, and extract the most important things from what they read. lessons for life.

This problem is complex, but completely solvable. To do this, special attention must be paid to the training of teaching staff in the humanities. It is impossible for people to enter pedagogical institutes according to the residual principle: if you don’t get into an elite university, where to go? To the pedagogical! Pedagogical universities should become intellectual and cultural centers of our country, and the prestige of teachers should be comparable to the prestige of scientists, astronauts, and athletes. In that case capable people will go to pedagogical universities, and it is they who will form the new generation, even if not everything goes well with the programs and manuals. Because a talented teacher can convey a powerful emotional, spiritual, intellectual signal over bureaucratic documentation - believe me, I know this first-hand.

Nevertheless, it is useful for us to think about school and university programs that are so actively discussed today, including their variability. I hope we will talk about this topic again, but, looking forward to the discussion, I would like to express my opinion: there is no need to be afraid of the word “variability.” Some shy away from him as if from a scarecrow. But the whole question is what to choose from. If we choose between two works by Dostoevsky, we will not lose anything. But if a great classic is contrasted with a writer whose work does not evoke universal admiration and whose personality does not evoke respect, then this is no longer variability; a different term should be applied to such a phenomenon.

Therefore, there is no need to be afraid of variability. We need to talk about the intellectual, spiritual, and cultural content of school education programs. It is important that behind smart and attractive formulations such as “modular teaching”, “thematic principle”, “variable content”, “strengthening subjectivity in teaching”, “the teacher’s ability to formulate his own program, adapting it to the specifics of the school, class, region” , - stood verified and time-tested pedagogical methods, and did not hide, as happens, pedagogical helplessness, essentially unnecessary and dubious experiments, taste, restless desire for reforms, unprofessionalism, in the end. But it’s not a matter of terms - it’s a matter of content, a good head and a kind heart. Then we will have reached a national consensus on all the most difficult issues, including those that we are now considering.

Of course, the school curriculum as a whole is overloaded, and the child does not always cope with it successfully. I remember my school years: my family was poor, and I was forced to work and study. I didn’t have a minute of free time either on the tram or on the bus - I was always with a book. I know what it's like to be overwhelmed. But I thank my wonderful teachers, who, despite this overload, armed me not only with knowledge, but also with a love of literature, and taught me how to write essays. And try to make it easier for children to study by providing the opportunity to remove great works recognized throughout the world from the program artistic literature, of course, is unacceptable.

In preparing for this speech, I tried to delve into the main controversial issues relating to the teaching of literature in school. There are problems that I would like to propose for our joint discussion.

Some “experts” argue that Russian classical literature - its language, heroes, value paradigm - is incomprehensible to modern schoolchildren, and therefore almost useless in the field of education. Another thing, in their opinion, is the literature of modern times, which talks about familiar realities, qualities needed for a successful life, trends, excuse the word, and so on.

"Trend" - foreign word. “Tendency” is also foreign, but Latin. Why Latin word"tendency" was replaced by English "trend", explain to me, educated people? Or is the word “trend” an indicator of education? For me this is a very bad sign. That is why I did not delete the word “trend” from this text, wanting to express my opinion about the often completely illogical, unjustified use of foreign, primarily English, words in our modern Russian language.

Of course, the best works of literature at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries should be studied in school, but they should be introduced into the curriculum without haste, remembering the ideological function of literature, which can awaken “good feelings,” in the words of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, and can promote both in allegorical , and in explicit form, images and ideas that are destructive for children.

It is necessary to find a reasonable balance between the basic, mandatory and variable parts of the list of works offered for classroom and extracurricular reading. The need for responsible discussion and adoption of the so-called “golden canon” seems fundamentally important. It can be called whatever you like: “golden canon”, “national canon”, “canon of Russian literature”, but there must be a set of texts that must be studied in secondary school. Without this, we simply will not be able to form in children a holistic perception of Russian literature, and therefore Russian culture. I think there is no need to be afraid that in such a situation teachers are deprived of choice. There is always a choice: to work conscientiously or carelessly, to sincerely love children and your profession or to be indifferent to it. But the most important thing is the choice that I mentioned earlier. The teacher can choose from the two best the best, from his point of view. But the choice cannot be between the best and the mediocre, between obligatory for everyone due to the unique contribution of the work to Russian and world culture and a purely conceptual text, interesting in this moment, but losing meaning along with the disappearance of the historical context. Attaching liberal arts education solely to the context of the era is the wrong method. Undoubtedly, education should actualize ideas emanating from culture, from tradition. Without this, culture and tradition die. The modern context cannot fully control educational process, because what is very important in our fast-flowing time will not be important tomorrow. How we suffered from the problems of the 90s! I remember what was happening in this room. Such was the battle between right and left! Where are these battles, where are these people? Everything is gone, but Pushkin hasn’t left! So, I think that it is necessary to find a reasonable balance between the basic, mandatory and variable parts of the list of works offered for classroom and extracurricular reading. Fundamentally important is the need to preserve, as I have already said, a certain canon. And I believe that this is what we should focus on: what kind of canon is this, what kind of books are and how variability can operate within this canon.

Obviously, one of the reasons for the decline in interest in Russian literature and its generally unsatisfactory knowledge among the younger generation was, among other things, the ongoing educational reforms over several years. I do not want to criticize any specific institutions, or people, or the very idea of ​​reform. Professionals have already made various comments and will probably continue to criticize certain aspects of this reform. It is also impossible without reforms. You can't stand in one place. The world is developing, the school is developing, our country is developing. On May 24, the day of Cyril and Methodius, I was at a concert on Red Square. A girl was sitting next to me. I look - he sings very well, with a clear voice, very clearly. I started talking to her. The girl is studying in the 5th grade, I looked at her and couldn’t believe my eyes - sitting in front of me was an adult, relaxed, smart, knowledgeable. I remember myself in the 5th grade - I would not only be afraid to say a word to the Patriarch, I would be afraid to say a word to the school principal. But this is a different generation, and if we say that the school of the 50s-60s should be the indisputable gold standard for us, we will ruin the school, the standard, and everything else.

At the same time, I am sure that it would be wrong to consider education reforms, as I have already said, from an exclusively critical point of view. As a result of long-term reforms that affected all areas and levels of education, it was necessary to radically reduce the minimum threshold in the Unified State Examination. We are touching this now too difficult topic. Regarding the Unified State Exam, I will express my opinion - I have already expressed it several times in different audiences, I think it is important to do it now, without, of course, claiming any special positive assessments - it seems to me that completely abandoning the Unified State Exam would be the wrong step. I became acquainted with the Unified State Exam in Finland about 30 years ago. I had a connection to this country - I managed our parishes there, being the rector of the theological academy in St. Petersburg. And then one day I came to this country on a spring day, and I saw how many young people were wearing white caps. They explained to me that these are those who passed the state exam for high school. I ask: “What does this status give?” - “Student title.” - “Have they already entered universities?” - “No, and many will not do so. But they are already students, they have their own status recognized by the state.” And they told me about the Unified State Exam system, and I thought it was a good thing when there is some kind of directive assessment of a student’s knowledge.

But there is something in this good idea that you definitely need to pay attention to in order to correct it in the future. better side, because the current state of the Unified State Exam causes too many complaints from parents, children, and teachers. The first criticism and objection is the test response system. There are subjects whose knowledge cannot be assessed in a test manner. You can pass the traffic rules in a test manner, but in some countries they refused: they offer to examine certain situations on computers. At one time I took my license in Switzerland - you put crosses and that’s it. But people realized that this was not entirely correct, that such an assessment system for a whole range of subjects was insufficient.

Therefore, it seems to me that, firstly, the introduction of an essay is already a very big step forward. It is important that an oral component be added to the Unified State Examination, which would not serve as the only method for determining knowledge. After all, a personality reveals itself when it talks, and the girl revealed herself when she started talking to me. And if you gave her some template, it remains to be seen what she would say. Therefore, I am deeply convinced that the oral component when passing a state exam in a number of subjects is a very important point. Of course, this primarily concerns the Russian language and literature. It is impossible to “drive” all the wealth of our literature into tests and short answers to questions. Recently, at the award ceremony for the laureates of the Patriarchal Literary Prize, I already recalled the words of Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman, with whom I had the joy of personal acquaintance and communication. I can’t say that we were friends, but we were mutually interested interlocutors. I knew both him and his wife, and I gained a lot from communicating with this man. So, he said that eternal ideas and values ​​invariably put on the clothes of time, and the reader only needs to correctly recognize these thoughts. Today I would like to quote another remarkable statement by this outstanding philologist. Speaking about categories such as culture and information, he said: “Culture is not a warehouse of information at all.<…>Culture is a flexible and complexly organized mechanism of cognition”2. It is impossible to imagine literature as a collection of data about writers, their works and main characters. Reading a literary work is always reflection, deep inner work mind and heart, which cannot be seen and assessed by correctly checking the boxes.

It is no coincidence that in the 50s and 60s there were sometimes critical remarks about the film adaptation classical works. What happens to a person when he reads a classic literary work? And the more talented the author, the more powerfully what I’m about to say affects a person. Every reader of fiction creates in his mind artistic image. And the stronger the writer, the brighter image in our minds. I do not live by the images that I saw in films based on the novels of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy. I have developed my own images, even my own room interiors; how I imagine the clothes based on what was written in these texts, what the characters looked like. In other words, each of us, reading a literary text, becomes a co-author; for himself - we have already talked about actualization today - he personally updates the content of the work of art. And this cannot be replaced either by cinema, although even there it is interesting to observe the skill of the director and actors, or by theatre, although there it is important to see the beauty of everything that the director and actor creates. Because with reading, you are the director yourself, you are the artist yourself, you are the director yourself. It is precisely this part of the assimilation of a literary text, I think, that contains its enduring significance for the formation of personality, for the formation of human culture.

Extremely important topic, which also needs our joint discussion, is the issue of training future teachers. I have already said this and will not dwell on it. I will only say that Russian literature is, without exaggeration, one of the pillars of our national life, the most important foundation of the civilization of the Russian world, I would say, a cultural pillar state life. Therefore, the future of the Russian language and literature should be a subject of discussion not only among professionals, but throughout Russian society. This is a strategic task today that must be resolved responsibly.

The fertile field of Russian literature should not be an arena for ideological battles, for lobbying someone's interests, or inappropriate experiments. We need to clear this platform of internecine strife that we inherited from the 90s. We must fully realize that over the past years and decades, mistakes and distortions have, of course, been made, but there is no life without mistakes and without distortions. It is very dangerous when a mistake is not noticed, when, due to political and human factors, it is hushed up and becomes part of the flesh and blood. folk life. That's when this mistake becomes a historical crime. I think we are all called upon today - not only society, but also the Government, the writing community, readers - to realize that we are at a very important point in our spiritual and cultural development. What will happen to our school, to our literature, to our writing workshop and to our readers depends to a large extent on what this development will be like.

“The Ministry of Education has a vague idea
features of Russian civilization"

— Selecting books to read and study at school is far from a minor problem. This choice can be destructive for our entire society, or it can become strengthening, educating new generations in the best traditions of our people.

Starting from early childhood, books educate a growing person and lay the foundations of his personality. And this process cannot be left to chance. For example, at Literaturnaya Gazeta we try to regularly give reviews and recommendations on children’s literature. There were even special supplements on children's and youth literature. But before, the Writers’ Union did a lot of this. And the association for children's and youth literature was one of the most influential - it included classics of children's literature. I still remember Lev Kassil, who headed this association. And, of course, such people simply would not get past the current hack. But now, unfortunately, we call those who published a book writers. But these are different things. A writer is not the one who wrote something, but the one who can and should be read.

Of course, we cannot neglect the classics. It is impossible to give the opportunity to put some second-rate works in the program instead of them. Classic is the base. And these are books that capture the language norm. And most importantly, they contain our national code.

After all, unfortunately, we have a lot of books, reading which you won’t understand where the author was born or where he lives.

The position of the Ministry of Education matters a lot here. But this position is extremely flawed. In my opinion, the people working there have a very vague idea of ​​the features of our Russian civilization. I've encountered this many times. And there was even a scandal once. I once asked a representative of the Ministry of Education: “Why did you include so many emigrant writers, and of the third wave, in the list of recommended literature for schoolchildren? Not the first, when there was a revolution, a catastrophe, a forced separation from the Motherland, but the third, when people left on their own, simply because they didn’t like living here.” And an official from the Ministry of Education says to me: “Does it really matter where the writer went and where he lives?” I was simply indignant: “But what?!” Who do you want to educate? A man who was educated here and then took his suitcase and left for Silicon Valley? Then come on, include those who left. Because a writer who left of his own free will, even if he writes very well, will still show his attitude towards the country from which he left.”

All these misunderstandings are not at all as harmless as they might seem. We are talking about the existence of a language, literature, people.

« 80 percent of parents are unhappy
textbooks and programs on Russian language and literature"

Alexey Vladimirovich Gusev , Chairman of the Coordination Council of the National Parental Association for Social Support of the Family and Protection of Family Traditions (Moscow):

— The Russian language is not just a school subject, but a living phenomenon, a fundamental value for the people. Too much in our lives depends on his condition and level of teaching. And there are many problems here today. But simple solutions No.

They often say: give us time on television, a special program on Channel One, let’s call it, for example, “The Russian language is our everything.” But this in itself will not give anything, will not solve anything. Children need to watch this show. And they are all on the Internet and playing electronic games. And our information, our influence in this field is not there. But this is exactly what is needed now.

Everyone knows the example when in Pushkin’s book a 2-year-old child tries to expand the picture with two fingers - just like on the screen. This means that children from an early age perceive the world in modern formats. And we cannot fall behind - we must use such formats and enter this field. And this is a serious fight for our children, for our future.

We have something to offer children, something to educate them on. Take at least famous fairy tale « The Scarlet Flower"- not in the adapted version, but in the original text. There is so much invaluable lexical material that needs to be studied. This, by the way, also applies to family relations, and vocabulary of family communication - with such expressions as “heart friend” and many others, sparkling like the facets of a diamond.

At the same time, one cannot ignore the global threats and challenges that exist in the world. Let's take the so-called “creole languages”, which are actively developing in different countries and are a mixture of local vocabulary with Anglicisms and international argot. On the one hand, this leads to simplification of communication, on the other, to spiritual impoverishment. And this can be a huge danger for the language, for the national culture.

How can one not recall the words spoken at one time by Vladimir Dahl: “Russian speech will face one of two things: either e either, or, having come to your senses, turn onto a different path, taking with you all the supplies abandoned in a hurry.”

The situation is difficult now. And the question of textbooks, the choice of works for schoolchildren, and the level of teaching becomes very important. Here are the data from recent mass surveys among parents. It turned out that: 81 percent of respondents were not satisfied with the level of teaching of Russian language and literature at school; 72 percent resort to additional classes in these subjects; More than 80 percent express complaints about textbooks and programs. There is general agreement that the selection of works for study in schools requires expertise at three levels: academic, pedagogical and social.

The opinion of the overwhelming majority of parents is also unanimous that the autonomy of schools was a colossal blow to the unity of education in the country.

What can you not find in the lists of books that children of primary grades of different schools go through instead of studying good classical literature. Here you can find “Murder in the Rue Morgue” by Edgar Poe, and the anonymous diary of a 15-year-old drug addict “Blue Grass”, and numerous variations on the themes of orcs and goblins. Parents are sounding the alarm: urgent measures are needed!

“This is a cry from the heart: parents in the ministry are not heard!”

Nadezhda Alekseevna Ilyukhina , Head of the Department of Russian Language, Samara University named after S.P. Koroleva, Doctor of Philology (Samara):

— The situation is extremely alarming. And I just want to let out a cry from the heart: they don’t hear us! The opinion of the parent community is ignored in educational policy. Now a mechanism for communication between the public (civil society), teachers and the ministry is vitally needed.

And today many problems require combining the efforts of families and schools. One of them is the influence of the Internet on language culture, or more precisely, on language security. The Internet can be used for good, but you need to learn how to do it, clearly understand what is intended for whom. After all, the same thing can have completely different effects on different age groups. The so-called “Albanian language” is, as a rule, not dangerous for an adult. All these “preved”, “krasavcheg” and so on are used as a gaming format of communication. But for a child this is harmful and dangerous. After all, as a result, he does not develop correct image words. And this undermines the foundation of literacy.

Or take emoticons. For an adult this is normal, it saves time. It’s bad for a child. After all, he no longer needs to remember words and expressions (I’m upset, happy, etc.), just hit the key with his finger.

So it turns out that many young people, including students, are unable to create a detailed text. This effect is aggravated by the practice of the Unified State Examination, which dictates the methodology for teaching the Russian language and provides guidance for tests.

We hardly notice that high style has practically disappeared from our lives and communication. We can say that he stayed only until May 9th. But for a normal harmonious life, this layer is necessary. We are poorer without it. And our spiritual culture is more defective.

It just so happens that everyday speech prevails today. This is a dangerous imbalance. And in order to correct it, to prevent further tilt, a counterbalance is needed - it is necessary to teach children competent, coherent speech, including necessarily written speech.

Elena Leontievna Gerasimova , Head of the Perm Regional Center children's reading, Honored Worker of Culture of the Russian Federation (Perm):

- I can say with complete confidence that family reading is a guarantor of the preservation of the Russian language, our national linguistic culture. We conducted extensive research and found that this is the main factor in the influence of the family on the child. The second factor is your home library. The third is the motivation of parents.

Choosing literature for family reading is not such a simple matter. The poor awareness of parents about modern literature today is very a big problem. It is a pity that they, as a rule, do not know the capabilities of the library. And they need to be educated about this in every possible way.

And one more very serious problem: Parents do not have enough time for family reading. And why? They are rarely at home, they work a lot. In fact, they prioritize their careers. They believe that by doing this they are doing a lot for children, providing them with material well-being and a future. But this is a dangerous misconception! Family communication, family education, family reading are vital and irreplaceable. Otherwise, there is a huge threat to the moral health of children, their cultural, spiritual development.

We realized: we need to create family reading programs. We take parents of children 2-4 years old. Often, parents themselves do not know why, for example, they should read fairy tales to their children. One dad and I recently discussed why read “Ryaba Hen”. He then talked a lot about it with his friends. And I came to the conclusion that this fairy tale is about how everything must be given in due time, including the golden egg. Well, that may be the meaning. The main thing is to think, to arouse interest.

We need to go to Internet sites where both children and young parents are present, and create websites, forums, and networks there. For example, we launched the “Reading with Passion” website for parents. One mother wrote the text “10 criteria for selecting books for children” there, and now it is being actively discussed and debated.

This opens up many interesting ways to introduce children to reading. For example, there is such a feature of child psychology: children need to read for someone, then they will be interested. So here, from time to time, Father Frost or another fairy-tale character comes, and the children read aloud to him. With great pleasure! And if it’s just like that, then often you won’t be able to force it.

“The last thing I read was the traffic rules”

Tatyana Mikhailovna Barinova , Professor, Department of Primary and School Education, North-Eastern State University (Magadan):

— The global problem today is what a child means for a family, for parents. It turns out that young parents themselves do not always understand this well. They, who grew up in the 1990s, were often brought up poorly and read little and poorly. I recently spoke with one young father and asked him what last book he read. Answers: “Traffic rules.” At first I didn’t understand what this meant: a detective story, or something? And he explained: “Road rules.” Like this!

It has become obvious that today's parents have virtually no knowledge of Russian folklore, which has been used to great effect in raising children for many generations. All these “puzzles”, “water off a duck’s back...” and other funny rhymes and sayings - they not only make you laugh and entertain, but also educate very well and create the right contact. Alas, this practice is disappearing from family communication. And these are also consequences of decreased interest in reading, language, and folklore. We need to take this into account. And understand that the problem of linguistic culture cannot be separated from common problem young family.

“A child learns from what he sees in his home”

Lyudmila Viktorovna Zolotnitskaya , executive director of the Urals Women's Forum (Ekaterinburg):

— The problem is that many parents have very different and often weak ideas about the choice of reading for children. Parental education is urgently needed now. Few of them know what to read and how to read. We conducted research by interviewing both children and their parents. So, the children answered that they read on average 1-2 hours a day. And the parents laugh at this. Don't believe it? Or don't they know?

This is a broken link in the system family education, which is ineffective without family reading. After all, you can get people excited about reading only by your example. Eat old saying: “A child learns from what he sees in his home.” She is essentially correct.

So I told my child what I was reading, and he responded by telling me that he was reading himself. It was useful for both me and him, it gave us a lot. Thanks to my son’s stories, I discovered some authors.

Much needs to be done in this direction and to promote existing experience. For example, there is a large and useful project “Reading Mother - Reading Nation”, but who knows about it?..

“We need Russification of the world”

Victoria Aleksandrovna Dmitrieva , Head of the Department of the Faculty of Psychology of St. Petersburg State University, Director of the Antonio Meneghetti Scientific Foundation (St. Petersburg):

— The Russian language needs a variety of support and protection. The situation will change for the better if our children strive to study in Russia, and not abroad. It is necessary to destroy the myths about Russia as an ignorant and aggressive country, to develop and promote the possibilities of our education. Let, on the contrary, more people study with us from abroad. For example, students from Latvia, Ukraine, Latin America, Central Asia, and European countries study at St. Petersburg State University. We offer foreign students a cultural program, because we must use all opportunities to promote the Russian language and Russian culture. The world needs to be Russified, just as Americanization was done.

“We have to look for old textbooks in barns.”

Elena Yurievna Masyuk , mother of many children ( Tyumen region):

“Now in schools, children are taught literature and the Russian language using terrible textbooks. It often happens that if a child misses some classes, then it is impossible to catch up on his own using the textbook. The content is simply bad. Such textbooks discourage reading. We have to look for old textbooks in barns. We are already starting to draw up a petition to collect signatures on the need for a unified state textbook.

But if children read little, they will speak poorly. And this will hinder their success in life. When a person cannot speak freely, speak publicly, or read from a piece of paper, this, as a rule, pushes people away from him.

The situation at school is difficult. Folklore- an important indicator. Look how many jokes about the Ministry of Education there are lately. This says something!

A lot of linguistic distortions come from officials and the media. And no responsibility! We have already taken the initiative to fine people for grammatical and language errors in outdoor advertising and official documentation. So we will fight this, and at the same time replenish the budget. This proposal is currently being discussed. But they are afraid. There will be too many fines.

And on the Internet, sites should be blocked for mistakes!

“Not just teaching, but educating—that’s the Russian way”

Andrey Ivanovich Lazarev , founder of the Alexey Andreevich Khovansky Foundation (Voronezh):

— There is no need to reinvent the wheels. We have already been burned by foreign systems, test checks and other borrowings. But we have our own invaluable experience. And this is not only a lot from the recent Soviet past, which has often been talked about lately. But these are also purely Russian discoveries in the field of literature and pedagogy. We are talking, in particular, about the methodology of Alexey Andreevich Khovansky. He was translated into other languages, based on his experience in different countries, but in our country his works and experience are still in oblivion. Khovansky was called “the teacher of teachers”; his journal “Philological Notes”, which was published since 1860 and has now been resumed, was recognized as the best publication in this field. The essence of Khovansky’s methodology: both teach and educate - and not just teach. This is still the best method! And very necessary.

“Where are the bookstores, where are the children’s books?”

Irina Petrovna Medvedeva , Chairman of the Primorsky organization “Council of Mothers of Many Children” (Vladivostok):

— What to choose to read to children is a fundamental question. But no less important is a purely practical question: where to buy a good book? Faces this great amount parents in the regions. Here we have only two bookstores in the whole of Vladivostok. Well, most of what is sold there can, with great stretch, be called literature. There are only a few worthy authors, such as P. Bazhov, and for the most part there are numerous publications like Harry Potter.

How, under such conditions, can one instill good reading taste, interest in the best literary traditions and high standards of the Russian language?

“Without Dostoevsky we will not be Russian”

Vladimir Aleksandrovich Akimkin , father of many children (Tver region):

— I have seven children growing up in my family. A large family, of course, presents considerable challenges, but also rich opportunities for education. The eldest girl is 14 years old, the eldest boy is 13. And they are already quite responsible people, developed, conscientious, masters. The life of a large family is structured in such a way that the elders take care of the younger ones, help their parents and develop faster. At the same time, family reading also helped us a lot. From personal experience I can say that Russian classics are necessary as the basis of language and soul. Without Dostoevsky we will not be real Russians. On this basis, you can already read everything. But the foundation must be there. Without roots, the plant dies. So is the person and the nation. Of course, everything needs to be given and received on time. But that’s why they are parents, to offer a suitable book in time.

And calligraphy is very important! My children have written with a pen from the very beginning. This makes for great handwriting. Develops the ability to read, think, speak. I propose to introduce the following rule for everyone: the first three grades in schools should be written with a pen. And to return Russian literature as a single discipline, including the Russian language, literature, rhetoric, and calligraphy.

On May 25-26, the First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature (ORS), a newly created public organization headed by Patriarch Kirill, took place in Moscow. On the first day of the congress, the work was organized in sections, and the plenary session was held in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions on the second day.

First Congress of the Society of Russian Literature: awaiting a resolution

ORS refers to this type of public organization that is born from above, and from the very “top”: I personally asked the Patriarch to head the Society V.V.Putin, he also delivered a greeting at the congress itself. In the Hall of Columns, in addition to the participants and delegates of the congress, there were ministers, presidential aides, deputies of the Duma and the Federation Council ( for the most part those who left after the departure of the president). Such an organizational resource makes the powers of this public organization very broad. This is both the strength and weakness of the Society - suddenly acquired power tempts you, you need to be prepared for it. How the ORS, whose presidium numbers more than 70 people, will use this power will become clear in the near future.

Patriarch Kirill- the face of the new organization. It was his speech that opened the plenary session - and it became the most balanced, vivid and accurate speech of the congress. His Holiness spoke about how he sees the state of affairs with the teaching of literature and the Russian language in schools and universities. He spoke simply and figuratively; he managed to formulate the most ordinary things in such a way that they were filled with significant meaning. According to the patriarch, when talking about literature at school, there is not only an exchange of information; what is important is knowledge that goes from heart to heart, knowledge refracted through a person. Therefore, the figure of the mentor is key here. It is the teacher who manages (or fails) to instill a love of reading books - and this formation of love and interest in literature should become his main task. He is hampered by numerous bureaucratic things - but a talented teacher, even over these barriers, can send a powerful emotional signal to the student.

The Patriarch urged not to be afraid of variability in literary education. The main issue is that the choice is between the best and the best, and not the best and the mediocre. Therefore, on the agenda is the definition of the “golden canon” (within which, however, its own variability is possible) and finding a reasonable balance between the basic, mandatory and variable parts of the program. The main thing, as the patriarch said, is to have a good head and kind heart- then the choice will be correct.

Recognizing the overload of the school curriculum, the patriarch suggested not rushing to abandon the classics. She is timeless. Focusing only on the modern, understandable, included in the current context is dangerous, because the context will fade, be forgotten, turn out to be momentary - “but Pushkin will remain forever.” At the same time, the patriarch urged not to freeze at one point and not to be afraid of change. He told how during a concert on Red Square he got into a conversation with an unfamiliar girl sitting next to him. She studies in the fifth grade - and completely amazed the patriarch with the depth of knowledge and freedom of judgment. “We weren’t like that; at her age, not only with the patriarch, I would be afraid to talk to the school director.” The children are different, the time is different - and the school should be different. But all changes must be thought out very well. Speaking about reforms, the patriarch particularly focused on the Unified State Exam: while supporting the idea of ​​a unified exam in principle, he nevertheless spoke out sharply against test measurements of knowledge and called for an oral component to be introduced into the Unified State Exam.

Speaking about the pain points of the current humanitarian education, the patriarch emphasized that the OPC intends to deal with precisely them. And to solve pressing problems, it is necessary to consolidate different forces.

Other speakers also spoke about this consolidation, about what has been done recently in the field of Russian language and literature: the President of RAO L.Verbitskaya, Chairman of the State Duma S. Naryshkin, Minister of education D. Livanov. Then V. Putin visited the congress for a short time, who welcomed the creation of the Society.

Then we moved on to the reports of the leaders of the working sections of the congress. And then it became clear that real consolidation is still very far away. And moments of consolidated applause during the speech of populist manipulative experts or indignant stamping of feet - well, where would a congress be without them? - rather cause sadness, reminiscent of other congresses of other times...

The recommendations of the sections, which were to be included in the final resolution of the congress, often contradicted each other, which corresponds to the picture of the real state of the professional community of humanists. Some proposed banning the concept of teaching Russian language and literature adopted by the government, others to begin work on a set of measures for its implementation. Some demanded that the sample programs be reworked and turned into unified and mandatory ones, while others said that this was impossible and unnecessary. The section of culture and art asked to make the Unified State Examination in literature mandatory, the section of parents - to return everything as it was in the Soviet school, increasing, for example, the share of “normative solemn, pretentious speech” in the environment of the child... There were calls to introduce exams in the Russian language for journalists and workers television and radio and dismiss for mistakes (in parentheses we will say that on the stands in the corridor of the Hall of Columns Ivan Alekseevich Bunin was called Andreevich, and the representative of Moscow State University in her speech called him Aleksandrovich - and, it seems, no one lost their posts...) And - etc. There were a lot of proposals, and it was impossible to create a congress resolution on them on the spot - so it was decided to collect, summarize and post all the materials on the OPC website.

It is unknown what form the final resolution will take as a result. The congress took place, and it is gratifying that the problems of literature were actually discussed these days. high level. But the main problem is that we have many committees, councils and societies dealing with Russian language and literature. And there are a lot of conversations. Will the OPC become a real force, capable of not only discussing problems, but also solving them? And won't it be a source of new problems? How will such a large organization manage its life and how will it establish connections with government agencies and society? Will they trust him? There are many questions, and we will get the first answers to them when we see the resolution and compare it with what was said and proposed at the congress.

Sergey Volkov

N.V. Kovtun, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Professor of the Department of World Literature and Methods of Its Teaching

Krasnoyarsk State Pedagogical University named after. V.P. Astafieva

The article is devoted to the analysis of the creation and development of domestic public organizations involved in increasing the level of literacy and literary education of the people. A special place is occupied by the history of the recently created Society of Russian Literature, which was headed by His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'; the main tasks and directions of the organization’s activities are described.

The work shows how the role of fiction and books has changed in the cultural contextXX–XXI centuries, dynamics of symbolic and social status its creators, the functions of reading and composing - the fundamental practices that make it possible literary creativity as such. A number of fundamental mythologies underlying the national culture (literary-centrism, bibliophilic myth) are explained, without knowledge of which it is impossible to understand the specifics of the current situation, which has dramatically affected the status of philological education and humanities in general. It is emphasized that the creation of the Society of Russian Literature is not just a desire to strengthen the cultural prestige of the country, to remind about national traditions, about Orthodox foundations our culture, but the awareness by intellectuals, clergy, and authorities of the idea of ​​​​the impossibility of preserving a state without the language and literature that holds it together.

On March 9, 2016, His Holiness Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus' established the Society of Russian Literature (ORS). The Patriarch personally headed the Society, which included prominent scientists, members of the Russian Academy of Sciences and the Russian Academy of Education, teachers of leading Russian universities, teachers, writers, publishers, representatives of government, clergy and students. The very fact of the birth of a new public organization, on the one hand, is evidence of the actualization of interest in liberal arts education(it is no coincidence that 2015 passed under the sign of Literature), on the other hand, confirmation of a very difficult state of affairs in this area, directly related to issues of personal self-determination, the nation’s self-awareness of its destiny, cultivating a sense of citizenship, attitude towards its land and culture. In recent years, from a self-sufficient, structure-forming field of knowledge, the humanities have turned into a service sector, and we are seeing the destructive consequences of this today.

The idea of ​​creating an organization whose goal would be to increase literacy and literary education people, of course, did not arise today. In 1811, the Society of Lovers of Russian Literature (OLRS) was created at Moscow University, which existed until 1930. The mission of the Society was to promote the success of Russian literature as the main means of disseminating education. Members of the organization were also involved in publishing activities; among the particularly significant events was the publication of “Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language” by V. Dahl. At different periods, the post of Chairman of the Society was occupied by M.N. Zagoskin, A.S. Khomyakov, I.S. Aksakov, acad. F.I. Buslaev, acad. N.S. Tikhonravov, I.A. Bunin, P.N. Sakulin (died 1930). Active participation in his activities they took I.S. Turgenev, F.M. Dostoevsky, A.K. Tolstoy and other outstanding Russian writers and poets. At the meetings of the Society, F.I. read their works. Tyutchev and A.I. Polezhaev.

Special commissions are created under the Society: Pushkin, historical and literary and modern literature; The collections “Turgenev and His Time” (1923), “Pushkin” (in 2 volumes, 1924–1930) were published. With the change from the revolutionary-romantic, mystical-theurgic cultural paradigm of the 1920s to the monological, canonical Culture - 2, the Organization ceased to exist and was revived only during the period of “perestroika” on the initiative of Academician D.S. Likhachev (1992), who becomes its honorary chairman. More than twenty books have been published under the OLRS stamp, including the research “Society of Lovers of Russian Literature. 1811-1930" (2002); “Pushkin and OLRS” (1999); "IN AND. Dahl and OLRS" (2002); “Gogol and OLRS” (2005).

It is logical to preface the analysis of the functions and significance of ORS today with at least a cursory review the most important stages the formation of domestic culture as literary-centric, when a book or literary text acquires a completely special status. The origins of this situation are rooted in the Russian Middle Ages; already in the Age of Enlightenment, a bibliophilic myth was emerging, associated with the affirmation of the decisive, and sometimes the only influence of the book on the moral and aesthetic self-awareness of man and society as a whole. The sacred meaning of the book in which the Word of the Lord is hidden is defended: “The Word combines in itself both reason and speech, and one of the names of the Son of God, and the law given by him to people,” writes Yu.M. Lotman. The significance of the word is recognized as immanent, inherent in the word as such, “a vain word is unnatural as desecration.”

Rus' is paving its way to civilization, relying on the book, which provides exceptional authority to “book people.” If in Europe, as V. Kantor testifies, “the book of the ball was an addition to the luxuriously developed artistic, educational, social, everyday, urban infrastructure of Antiquity, albeit roughened by the barbarian invasion, then in Rus' it sometimes turned out to be the only builder of the spiritual life of the ancient Russians.” Introduction to book wisdom often occurs through the sounding word of the Teacher. The few literate people vested with spiritual power were respected, feared, and sometimes hated. The first Russian scribes were perceived as conductors of the will of the Almighty, instructing and inspiring them. The sacralization of the written word, on the one hand, and the inaccessibility of even the first handwritten sources, on the other, turn the book into a cult object. Even those recorded from the 11th century. creations of church literature are perceived mainly from the lips of clergy, and not from books; the book itself is awarded with almost mystical, ritual characteristics.

The book brought knowledge about the world to Rus'; through books they discovered Byzantium and Europe. When university education arose in Europe in the Middle Ages, it was absent in Rus', which indicates, rather, not backwardness, but originality cultural type. Thanks to universities, it was possible to master someone else’s culture as one’s own, study it, and comprehend it; in Russia, this role is taken on by the Academy of Sciences. M. Mamardashvili considers all Russian classical literature to be a verbal myth, a single “social and moral utopia,” “an attempt to give birth to an entire country - from words, from meanings, from truth.” The “teacher” function of the word, common to the era of classicism, acquires unprecedented relevance on Russian soil; it is assumed that “society has not yet been created, that it has yet to be created. In this creation, the writer plays the main role. Moreover, the author focuses on the future, and not on the present, on the ideal, and not on the real reader, on the reader whom he himself is called upon to create.” Russian people learn to live “inside” the text, among literary characters.

We also owe another basic mythologeme to the Age of Enlightenment, when the book is interpreted as an ideological weapon in the struggle of various subcultures. The nature of this situation is twofold: the dissolution of the artistic principle in extra-artistic verbal contexts for a long time prevents the isolation of literature as independent type aesthetic activity, however, at the same time this also creates the effect of the “all-presence” of literature, which oriented many social practices for book and literary samples.

Since the Enlightenment, the publishing activity itself has become a field of ideological struggle; here it is worth mentioning the actions of banning “harmful books”, the rigidity of censorship on printed materials, which marked the power structures from the time of Catherine right up to Stalin and Brezhnev. On the contrary, publications enrolled in ideologically approved reading programs are published in huge circulations. The book in Rus' is credited with the mythological role of an instant catalyst public opinion, the Russian writer cannot imagine himself without power, without the right to social prophecy. Literature in this context is a type of sermon, a way of influencing the evil that exists in real world: “A writer cannot renounce his moral convictions and should not lose faith in the power of his word, that his word can convince someone,” believes A.I. Solzhenitsyn.

Russian culture at the beginning of the 20th century was also marked by a mystical attitude towards the book. In modernism, the book, the artist, is a mediator between the profane, philistine present and the transcendental ideal, the word is literally a conductor of higher ideas. If modernism professes the doctrine of salvation through art, then the avant-garde, and after it official Soviet literature, consider the word as an instrument of life creation. Russian literature Soviet period"represents one of the most radical and consequential experiments in anthropological change through a large-scale writing project, carried out in the most favorable totalitarian conditions for this program," writes M. Berg. Soviet artists inherit the roles of interpreters of the highest truth, “interpreters”, the line between dream and reality, text and “extra-textual reality” is recognized as conditional, the “new world” is shaped according to the principle of “Potemkin villages” - slogans and appeals skillfully drape holes in the toga of a perfect state. It is art, primarily orthodox Soviet literature, that provides faith in the steadfastness of the “bright future.” Films, books, posters are a means of establishing the new government; they are denied independent aesthetic significance. No one has ever known such a large-scale, total power of the written word or picture over reality. historical era. The gradual demythologization of the idea of ​​a “bright future” and of the political system itself leads to the fact that official art involuntarily enters a phase of repetition and self-parody.

The era of postmodernism calls the fight against the power of speech and literature, the deconstruction of the great myths and utopias of the past, one of its main tasks. The cult authors of this time transferred the stylistics and language of European postmodernism to Russian soil, but this required the utmost humiliation and inversion of humanistic values ​​and principles of realistic writing, the introduction of taboo vocabulary, the use of infernal symbolism, and the deprivation of “literariness” from literature. Creativity as a game frees us from the power of previous ideas that are subject to deconstruction; the reward is freedom, intellectual first of all. The bearers of high ideals are assigned the role of spiritual “monsters”; there is a postmodern replacement of the lyrical subject with a kaleidoscope of masks. The author turns from a prophet or teacher into a craftsman, even a jester, whose task is to entertain the public.

By the end of the 1990s, the role of the “popular writer”, the writer-brand, whose fees were significantly higher than the earnings of traditionalists, for whom literature was a ministry, a mission, was strengthening. The demand for mass literature, an onlooker writer, an observer who distances himself from his own text (and then defamiliarizes it), becomes an indicator of the crisis of literary centrism, an assertion of the power of the market, its right to determine the status of a particular product, gesture, or event. In the conditions of decanonization of the image of the book, the writer’s word is desacralized and becomes the “word of man,” in need of discussion and verification. The artist gains real freedom and risks only the commercial failure of his own books, but at the same time public value his works are declining. Today's literature is losing “the status of a mirror of the laws of life, and the status of a zone of playful freedom, and the status of an oasis of spirituality.” High literature becomes the lot of a few, acquiring the quality of a museum.

In parallel with these processes, however, the dependence of postmodernist practices on the subject of deconstruction becomes more and more clear; the only criterion for assessing creativity remains the consistency of negation, the sophistication of the author’s game, which straightens the horizon of expectations. Art becomes dehumanized, becomes self-enclosed, entropic, demonstrating exclusively the technique of reception. Critics and readers are disappointed in this literature; no provocations, no playing on the strategies of classics or Soviet mythology, change the situation. A mass exodus from the borders of culture under the sign of “post-” is planned. The completion of the postmodern project, disappointment in the values ​​of globalization, which occurred at the turn of the 1990–2000s, actualizes interest in one’s own, national, realistic principles of poetics. The issues of preserving the purity of the native language and the status of literature again became urgent, ultimately determining the unity, security of the country, and its immediate future.

So, comparing the system of social functions of Russian literature of the 18th and 19th centuries with modernity, one cannot help but note the fundamental transformation that literature has undergone over the past decades: first of all, such a property of Russian literature as its ubiquitous presence in the early eras in religious, political, social, philosophical, natural science discourses, and also, naturally, within the disciplinary framework of the indicated spiritual and intellectual traditions. The transition from the Enlightenment belief in the power of the Word to the undermining of the status of the Author, the relativization of literary writing, significant violations of artistic conventions and the boundaries of artistry in general - ranging from their extreme socialization within the framework of the Soviet project to desocialization and total revision in postmodern aesthetics, where the hierarchical vertical is replaced by a pluralistic one horizontal, explosive, according to Yu.M. Lotman, was realized in the middle - late 20th century. Along with finding autonomous status, literature was faced with the visual arts that had previously been commercialized, whose symbolic value was determined by popularity among the masses.

During the period of cultural “liberalization” of the 1990s, literature lost the support of the authorities, was unable to compete on equal terms due to low demand, the debunking of the status of the intelligentsia, which had lost its former social charisma, and also due to the thinning of the layer of “serious” readers who aimed at a certain point for the entertainment provided visual views art. Economic reasons also played a role: books are an expensive commodity, home libraries are perceived as an unjustified luxury, as an excess or an old-fashioned eccentricity. The tradition of working with complex texts (the interpretation of which requires analytical effort, time, and internal preparation), which constitutes one of the most important features of Russian culture, is being devalued, but the “wake” in literature has obviously been rushed.

The value of literature at the turn of the 20th–21st centuries. opens in a different direction than before, is associated not with the reorganization of the universe, but with the interpretation of chaotic reality, the search for an adequate language for its comprehension: “we live only through interpretation, bringing meaning to reality.” It is literature that provides the tools for explaining the contradictory, secret moments of human existence, and in this function its significance is indestructible. Literature turns out to be a powerful tool dispensation, structuring of the cultural field, reconciliation of the “I” and modern, alienated reality, personal self-identification. Analysis literary texts, which have become symbols of a certain time, reveals the content of entire eras from positions closed to the exact sciences, hidden, giving an idea of ​​the spirit, sounds, smells, moods of people, their secret thoughts and high aspirations. Literature creates its own, much more subtle, unique than political, map of the universe, without knowledge of which it is hardly possible to comprehend the present and respond to challenges modern civilization. It is no coincidence that today, in parallel with the processes of demystification of Russian literature and the destruction of literary centrism, the process of saving “literary ideology” “from above” begins, as evidenced by a critical attitude towards mass literature, the functioning of a field of cultural establishment similar to that of the authorities, and the creation of a number of special public organizations.

Against this background, the creation of the Society of Russian Literature is no longer just a desire to strengthen the cultural prestige of the country, to recall national traditions, the Orthodox foundations of our culture, but the awareness by intellectuals, clergy, and authorities of the idea of ​​​​the impossibility of preserving a state without the language and literature that binds it together.

In modern Russia, the issue of literary literacy is one of the most emotionally discussed, “damned” issues. The passions around the Unified State Exam specifically in literature have not yet cooled down; the non-governmental organization Parents Committee speaks out sharply (even bans) against the sale of individual texts included in the additional reading program, and mass literature in general. List of books for required reading or the so-called “Golden Hundred” are discussed with such emotional intensity that it is difficult to explain based on educational pragmatics; rather, this is a consequence of the fear of losing literary centrism.

The priority of a literary text as an educational tool over others (pictorial, theatrical) lies, among other things, in its replication and control (censorship). Traditional school literature curricula, built on the reading and interpretation of canonical works, supported belief in certain spiritual, moral values, ideologically verified. The teacher’s word and work on the essay were aimed at establishing in the student the necessary skills in deciphering texts. This disciplinarian approach, which until the 1990s was perceived as the only possible one, despite all its costs, formed the rules of existence in a literary-centric environment, taught one to comprehend complex, large works that required a wide range of knowledge in philosophy, history, cultural studies, etc.

Reading famous circle texts were united by society no less than by territory. The sophisticated reader demanded a certain level of works, could judge their specificity, today the consumer finds himself in his place popular culture, designed for comfortable pastime, and not internal work.

Let us emphasize that Russia’s prestige in the world is high degree relies on the achievements of its classical literature, which has become a kind of code for reading the “mysterious Russian soul”, to replace which we today have not much to offer. Efforts aimed at preserving, studying, and disseminating the Russian language (the current project “Ambassadors of the Russian Language in the World”) do not lead to the expected results, largely because they are self-sufficient. The Russian language does not have the business powers of English or the scientific clarity of German; it is valued precisely as the language of brilliant Russian authors. The response to the reduction in the number of libraries and bookstores, the curtailment of the program for promoting national culture to the West, and the downplaying of the importance of philology as an independent field of knowledge was a sharp drop in interest in native language, literacy of the population as a whole.

The situation with university philological education is more than dramatic; the reduction of specialized literary departments, places in graduate school and doctoral studies has resulted in the washing out of professionals and gifted students from this environment, and a drop in the level of teaching in general. The active introduction of distance learning, among other things, has led to a devaluation of the culture of communication, especially noticeable in the field of specialists in exact sciences. The modern teaching community often remains captive to previous methods and approaches that are unable to satisfy the needs of students. As a result, we risk finding ourselves in a situation where a pragmatically minded, dumb population, having lost the ability to comprehend the high, imagination, deprived of quality education, protection of previous traditions and myths, will be insensitive to the motivations and calls of the State. The creation of an OPC is one possible answer to these concerns.

The work of the Organization has just begun; on May 25–26, 2016, the 1st Congress was held in Moscow, on the first day of which sectional sessions were held dedicated to current problems philological science, education, upbringing: “The Society of Russian Literature - mission and responsibility to Russian society”, “Russian language and literature at school”, “Professional associations of Russian scholars in the life of society”, “Culture and art as guides and guardians of Russian literature”, “Fundamental Russian language research", " Additional education: problems, achievements, development prospects”, “Teaching Russian language and literature in universities as a strategic priority of educational policy in a multinational state”, “The role of parents, parent communities and public organizations in the preservation of the Russian language”. The results of the work of each section were actively discussed during scientific discussions, proposals for the Congress resolution were developed and voiced.

On May 26, a plenary meeting of the Congress was held in the Hall of Columns of the House of Unions, at which the President of the Russian Federation V.V. made presentations and detailed reports. Putin, His Holiness Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' Kirill, Chairman of the Society, President of the Russian Academy of Education L.A. Verbitskaya, professors from leading universities in the country, school teachers, journalists. After hearing the opinions of the guests and forum participants, the Congress adopted several fundamental documents: the Congress Resolution, approved the composition of the Presidium and the Bureau of the OPC. Among the priority tasks, they included an examination of the state of legal support for language policy in the Russian Federation; work on the examination of school textbooks on literature; list discussion required literature for studying at school; improvement of Unified State Exam tasks, which they hope to supplement with an oral part; development of the National Reading Support Program (2016–2020); development special program regulating the acquisition of libraries of schools and universities; updating mechanisms for training and retraining personnel for the educational publishing system... and many others. It is important that the Society of Russian Literature is already functioning as a new discussion platform for discussing issues of teaching Russian language and literature, as an Organization consolidating the efforts of public and non-profit organizations dealing with issues of Russian literature.

On July 13, 2016, a meeting of the Presidium of the OPC was held in the Cathedral of Christ the Savior, chaired by Patriarch Kirill of Moscow and All Rus'. The atmosphere of the meeting was emphatically business-like; issues were resolved about the formation and activities of the OPC working groups, which will regulate the activities of certain areas related to the solution of priority tasks facing the Organization.

And finally, I would like to emphasize that efforts to consolidate and implement projects related to the preservation, development and promotion of the Russian language and literature, which are now being actively undertaken “from above,” cannot be effective enough without active support “from below.” Already today, under the auspices of the Society, monographs have been published (“Russian Traditionalism: History, Ideology, Poetics, Literary Reflection.” M., 2016), scientific projects and major international forums have been prepared. Understanding the complexity of moral, ethical, ideological and economic situation in a country that has had a dramatic impact on the situation in the field of education, it is important to use every chance to change it for the better, the OPC provides such a chance.

Literature

1. Paperny V. Culture Two. - M.: NLO, 2007.
2. Prikazchikova E.K. Cultural myths in Russian literature of the second half of the 18th - early 19th centuries. - Ekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House, 2009.
3. Lotman Yu.M. Essays on the history of Russian culture of the 18th century. / From the history of Russian culture XVIII - early. XIX century In 5 volumes. T. 4. - M., 1996.
4. Kantor V. “There is a European power” Russia: hard way to civilization. - M., 1997.
5. Mamardashvili M. How I understand philosophy. - M., 1992.
6. Berg M. Literaturocracy. Problems of appropriation and redistribution of power in literature. - M.: NLO, 2000.
7. Solzhenitsyn A. Interview with the German weekly “Die Zeit” // Zvezda. - 1994. - No. 6.
8. The crisis of literary centrism: loss of identity vs. new opportunities. Monograph / Rep. ed. N.V. Kovtun. - M.: Flinta: Science, 2014.
9. Venediktova T.D. About the benefits literary history for life // New Literary Review. - 2003. - No. 59. - P. 12–21.
10. Kovtun N.V. Introduction / Russian project for the reconstruction of the world and artistic creativity of the 19th-20th centuries. Monograph / rep. ed. N.V. Kovtun. - M.: Flinta: Science, 2011. - P. 5–11.
11. Izer V. Changing functions of literature / Modern literary theory: anthology. - M.: Flinta: Science, 2004.
12. Savkina I. “Vampire’s Kiss”: modern classics kill or preserve popular literature/Crisis of literary centrism: loss of identity vs. new opportunities. - M.: Flinta: Science, 2014. - P. 95–115.
13. Zenkin S. Criticism of narrative reason. Notes on theory // UFO. - 2003. - No. 59. - P. 524–534.
14. Kovtun N.V. “Garbage man” and the modern state: mechanisms of temptation // Literatura. - 2015. - T. 56–57. - No. 2. - P. 68–81.