Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) - a deep thinker, humanist and democrat - adhered to the theory of natural law. He argued that in the original, or "natural state", people were equal among themselves, they were distinguished by the purity of morals and were happy. But the private property that arose later divided the world into rich and poor, which led to inequality in society, to the deterioration of morals. This was also facilitated by the development of culture and science of feudal society. On the whole, Rousseau did not deny the positive significance of culture in the history of mankind, but he strove to prove that the activities of scientists and artists can be fruitful, will be useful to the people if it is subordinated to social goals.

In his work Social Contract (1762), Rousseau proclaimed the democratic idea of ​​the supreme power of the people. He saw the main cause of social evil in private property, but he was only against large property acquired unearnedly, and property acquired by personal labor, declared sacred and inviolable. This is the main contradiction in the social position of Rousseau, who expressed the interests of the petty-bourgeois strata of the population.

Rousseau sought to find ways to restore the lost equality; but for objective reasons, being unable to reveal the laws of social development, he pinned all his hopes on enlightenment and upbringing. Developing the idealistic theory of the contractual origin of the state put forward by Locke, Rousseau argued that in France the authorities violated the original contract and, therefore, the people had the right to overthrow them.

Like all French enlighteners of the 18th century, Rousseau believed that social relations could be improved through a properly delivered upbringing.

In 1762, Rousseau published his novel-treatise "Emile, or On Education", where he subjected the education carried out in a "feudal society" to devastating criticism, and outlined a plan for the formation of a new person.,

He returned to France much later, physically and mentally broken.

Rousseau's works played a particularly important role in the ideological preparation of the French bourgeois revolution; they gained wide popularity throughout the world.

The basis of Rousseau's pedagogical views is the theory of natural education, which is closely related to his social views, with his doctrine of natural law, Rousseau argued that a person will be born perfect, but modern social conditions, existing upbringing disfigure the nature of the child. Education will contribute to its development only if it acquires a natural, nature-friendly character.

In education, Rousseau believed, nature, people and things are involved. “The internal development of our abilities and our organs is education received from nature,” he wrote. from the side of things ”. Upbringing fulfills its role when, Rousseau believed, when all three factors that determine it will act in concert.

Rousseau's understanding of natural, nature-like upbringing differs from Comensky's interpretation. Unlike the Czech teacher, Rousseau believed that upbringing in a natural way means following the natural course of development of the child's nature. He demanded a thorough study of the child, a good knowledge of his age and individual characteristics.

Recognizing that human nature is perfect, Rousseau idealized the nature of the child and considered it necessary to take care of creating conditions in which all the inclinations inherent in him from birth could develop unhindered. The educator should not impose on the child his views and beliefs, ready-made moral rules, but should provide him the ability to grow and develop freely, in accordance with its nature and, if possible, eliminate everything. what can interfere with this. Natural education is also free education.

According to Rousseau, the educator needs to act so that children are convinced by the force of necessity, the logic of the natural course of things, that is, the method of “natural consequences” should be widely applied, the essence of which is that the child himself feels the result of his wrong actions, which inevitably arise from - for this, the consequences harmful to him. In fact, Rousseau made the child dependent on both things and a mentor who was constantly with him. For the pupil, only the semblance of freedom remained, since he always had to act in accordance with the desire of the educator "Without a doubt," wrote Rousseau, "he should only want what you want to make him do." Thus, it is the educator who, acting on his pupil in an indirect way, induces him to a versatile manifestation of activity and initiative.

The educator, to whom Rousseau assigned a large role in the formation of a new person, must clearly understand the goal facing him. He must give the pupil not a class, not a professional, but a general human upbringing. This demand was undoubtedly progressive in Rousseau's time.

Natural education, described by Rousseau in his work "Emile ...", is carried out on the basis of the age periodization he proposed. Starting from the characteristic features inherent in children's nature at various stages of natural development, Rousseau established four age periods in the life of a child. Having determined the leading principle for each stage of development, he, in accordance with this, indicated what the main attention of the educator should be directed to.

This age-related periodization represented a step forward in comparison with the periodization established by Comenius. For the first time, Rousseau tried to identify the internal laws of the child's development, but at the same time he did not engage in a deep study of the characteristics of certain stages of childhood. Subjective protrusion as the main one of the features inherent in each age, gave a contrived, artificial character of its periodization.

The description of natural education in each of these periods is devoted to special parts (books) of the treatise novel "Emil, or about education".

In the first book "Emile ..." Rousseau gave a number of specific instructions on upbringing in early childhood (up to two years), concerning mainly child care: his nutrition, hygiene, hardening, etc. The first care of the child, he believed , should belong to the mother, who, if possible, herself feeds him with her milk. “No mother, no child! he exclaimed. From the first days of a baby's life, she gives him freedom of movement, without tightening him tightly with a swivel; takes care of its hardening. Russo is an opponent of pampering children. "Teach, - he wrote, - children to trials ... Temper their bodies against bad weather, climates, elements, hunger, thirst, fatigue."

While strengthening the child's body, satisfying his natural needs, one should not, however, indulge his whims, since the fulfillment of any wishes of the child can turn him into a tyrant. Children, according to Rousseau, "start by forcing themselves to help and end up by forcing themselves to serve."

From the age of two, a new period in the child's life begins, now the main attention should be paid to the development of the sense organs. As a proponent of sensationalism, Rousseau believed that sensory education precedes mental education. "Everything that enters human thinking penetrates there through the medium of the senses ..." he wrote. In the second book "Emile ..." Rousseau described in detail how, in his opinion, the individual senses should be exercised. He suggested carrying out the various exercises recommended by him for the development of touch, sight, hearing in a natural setting.

Since, Rousseau believed, the mind of a child at this age is still asleep, it is premature and harmful to carry out training. He was opposed to artificially forcing the development of the speech of children, as this can lead to bad pronunciation, as well as to their misunderstanding of what they are talking about; meanwhile, it is very important to ensure that they only talk about what they really know

Rousseau artificially separated the development of sensations and thinking and expressed an inappropriate assumption that children under 12 years of age are allegedly incapable of generalizations and therefore their teaching should be postponed until the age of 12.

He admitted, of course, that a child can learn to read outside of school. But then the first and only book so far should be “Robinson Crusoe D. Defoe - a book that best meets the pedagogical intentions of Rousseau.

Rousseau believed that before the age of 12 it was unacceptable not only to teach a child, but also to give him moral instructions, since he did not yet have the corresponding life experience. At this age, he believed, the most effective will be the application of the method of "natural consequences", in which the child has the opportunity to experience the negative consequences of his own misconduct. For example, if he breaks a chair, you should not immediately replace it with a new one: let him feel how uncomfortable it is to go without a chair; if he breaks the glass in the window of his room, there is no need to rush to insert it: let him feel how uncomfortable and cold it has become. "Better to grab a runny nose than grow up insane."

Rousseau's merit was that he rejected boring moralizing with children, as well as the harsh methods of influencing them that were widely used at that time. However, the “natural consequences” method recommended by him as a universal method cannot replace all the various methods that instill in a child the skills and abilities of handling things, communicating with people.

At the age from 2 to 12 years old, children should get acquainted with natural and some social phenomena on the basis of personal experience, develop their external senses, be active in the process of games and physical exercises, and perform feasible agricultural work.

The third age period, from 12 to 15 years old, according to Rousseau, is the best time for training, since the pupil has a surplus of energy that should be directed to the acquisition of knowledge. Since this period is very short, then from the numerous sciences it is necessary to choose those that the child can learn with the greatest benefit for him. Rousseau also believed that the adolescent, who was still little familiar with the field of human relations, did not have access to the humanities, in particular history, and therefore he proposed studying the sciences of nature: geography, astronomy, physics (natural history).

Rousseau considered the goal of mental education to awaken the adolescent's interest and love for science, to arm him with the method of acquiring knowledge. In accordance with this, he proposed to radically restructure the content and methodology of teaching based on the development of amateur performance and activity of children. The child acquires knowledge of geography by getting to know the surroundings of the village in which he lives; studies astronomy by observing the starry sky, sunrise and sunset; masters physics, conducting experiments. He rejected textbooks and always put the pupil in the position of a researcher who discovers scientific truths. “Let him,” said Rousseau, “attain knowledge not through you, but through himself; let him not memorize science, but invent it himself ”. This demand of Rousseau expressed his passionate protest against the feudal school, cut off from life, from the experience of the child. Rousseau's insistent recommendations to develop in children observation, curiosity, activity, to stimulate the development of their independent judgments were, undoubtedly, historically progressive. But at the same time, Rousseau's views on education also contain erroneous provisions: he failed to connect the limited personal experience of the child with the experience accumulated by humanity and reflected in the sciences; recommended starting the mental education of children at a very late age.

At the age of 12-15, a teenager, along with education, should also receive labor education, the beginning of which was laid in the previous period. Democrat Rousseau saw labor as a social obligation of every person. According to him, every idle citizen - rich or poor, strong or weak - is a cheat.

Rousseau believed that the participation of a teenager in the labor activity of adults would give him the opportunity to understand modern social relations - it would arouse in him respect for workers, contempt for people living on someone else's expense. In work, he also saw an effective means for the mental development of the child. (Emil should work like a peasant, and think like a philosopher, Rousseau said.) Rousseau believed that a teenager needed to master not only some types of agricultural labor, but also the techniques of a craft. The most suitable in this case, he said, is the carpentry craft: it exercises the body enough, requires dexterity and ingenuity, the carpenter makes things useful for everyone, and not luxury goods. Having learned carpentry as the main one, the child can then get acquainted with other crafts. This should be done in a natural working environment, in the workshop of a craftsman, joining the life of the working people, drawing closer to them.

15 years is the age when you need to educate a young man to live among people of that social stratum in which he will have to live and act in the future. Rousseau set three main tasks of moral education: the development of good feelings, good judgments and goodwill. To the fore, he put forward the development of positive emotions, which, in his opinion, contribute to the excitement of a young man's humane attitude towards people, education of kindness, compassion for the disadvantaged and oppressed. as well as good examples.

Rousseau's thoughts on the upbringing of a woman (Emile's bride) were determined by his views on the nature of a woman and her social purpose. It consists, according to Rousseau, in being a mother, running a household, creating family comfort, to please and be useful to her husband. Therefore, the natural upbringing of a girl, he believed, should be fundamentally different from the upbringing of a young man; in a girl, she must cultivate obedience and obedience, a willingness to assimilate other people's views, even if they do not coincide with her own.

In order for a woman to give birth to healthy and strong children, so that she gains natural beauty and grace, appropriate physical education is necessary. She does not need any serious mental work. Rousseau extremely limited the education of the bride Emile, but believed that from childhood one should begin to teach her religion; the girl's views in this area are entirely determined by the authority of the people in whose submission she is. Every girl, according to Rousseau, should profess the religion of her mother, and every wife - the religion of her husband. Thus, setting the goal of raising a free independent citizen from a boy, Rousseau at the same time denied a woman independence.

Rousseau's views on the appointment of women in society and her upbringing are very conservative. Rebelling against the depraved morals that prevailed in his time among the higher nobility and the clergy of France, Rousseau elevated a modest, well-behaved woman belonging to the third estate into an ideal, but he improperly opposed the upbringing of a young man and a girl.

Despite a number of contradictions and erroneous provisions that are inherent in Rousseau's pedagogical ideas, the latter had a historically progressive meaning and had a great influence on the subsequent development of pedagogical thought.

Rousseau subjected to crushing criticism the moribund feudal system of upbringing, suppressing the personality of the child: class restrictions in the field of education, verbal teaching, dogmatism and cramming, cane discipline, corporal punishment.

Expressing the views of the progressive people of his time, he made a passionate appeal to free people from feudal oppression, to protect the rights of childhood. Rousseau urged to treat the child with love, to carefully study his age and individual characteristics, to take into account his needs.

He especially emphasized the need to educate children's sense organs, develop their observation skills, stimulate the development of independent thinking and creative powers in children.

Rousseau's demands to give education a real character, to connect it with life, to develop the activity and initiative of children in the learning process, to prepare them for work as a social duty of every citizen were very important.

At the same time, we can recognize not all of Rousseau's statements as correct, for example: his demand for individual "free upbringing", denial of the need for various pedagogical influences, except for indirect hence the reactionary views on her upbringing.

And yet, Rousseau's ideas about the upbringing of an active, thinking, free person had a huge positive impact on the development of pedagogical theory and practice in many countries.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's pedagogical concept

J.-J. Rousseau (1712-1778) was born in Geneva into the family of a watchmaker. In his life he changed many different professions: he was an apprentice of a notary, and then - an engraver; served as a footman and secretary; home educator and music teacher. He did not receive a systematic school education, but he did a lot of self-education. In 1741 he settled in Paris, where he met many prominent people of that time. In his views, he was close to enlighteners such as D. Diderot. His worldview was distinguished by deep contradictions. The development of sciences and art, he believed, does not improve the morals of people, but worsens them. He addressed this problem in many of his works, such as "On the cause of inequality between people", "Social contract", "Whether the revival of the sciences and art contributed to the purification of morals", "Emil, or On education", etc.

The time has come, argued J.-J. Rousseau, when the knowledge in which man was looking for salvation became a deception: sciences are born from the need to defend themselves, arts - from an ambitious desire to stand out, philosophy - from the desire to dominate. Unlike other enlighteners, he did not make the development of civic and morality dependent on the progress of sciences and art, the center of his attention was a natural, natural person who would be born perfect, but who was disfigured by social conditions. However, at the same time J. -J. Rousseau did not deny the role of education.

His concept of upbringing J.-J. Rousseau presented in a work in which he concentrated his reflections on the innate goodness of man: this is "Emile, or On Education" (1762), a treatise that he considered the best and most important of his works and in which his pedagogical views are expressed through artistic images. In the preface to "Emile" J.-J. Rousseau noted that he writes this book on the basis of his own ideas and believes that it is this work that gives him the right to the gratitude of people, since humanity can only be saved through education.

In his pedagogical concept, J.-J.-Rousseau rejected the contemporary educational and upbringing tradition. In his opinion, the old system of education, sanctioned by the church, should be abandoned. Instead, he considered it necessary to introduce a democratic system that should facilitate the identification of gifts in the child inherent in nature. Upbringing will contribute to the development of the child only if it acquires a natural, nature-conforming character, if it is directly related to the natural development of the individual and encouraging him to independently acquire personal experience and knowledge based on it.

Education, believed J.-J. Rousseau, is given to a person by nature, people and things around him; upbringing received from nature is the internal development of the abilities and organs of a person; education received from people is teaching how to use this development; upbringing from the side of things is the acquisition by a person of his own experience regarding the objects that surround him. All these three_factors should, according to J.-J. Russo, act in concert.

On nature as a factor in the upbringing of J.-J. Rousseau reasoned as follows: a child is born sensually receptive and receives impressions from the objects around him through the senses. As he grows, he becomes more receptive, knowledge of the environment expands, deepens, changes under the influence of adults. This approach to education was fundamentally new for that time, since the entire system of school education practically ignored both the age and individual characteristics of the child.

The upbringing of a person begins with his birth and continues throughout his life, and the main task of upbringing is to create a person. This new upbringing, according to J.-J. Rousseau should be different from the old one, which set itself the goal of preparing a good Christian and a good citizen from a child. For J.-J. Rousseau's upbringing was the art of developing the true freedom of man, depending only on himself. Hence, he denied the system of social education, since, in his opinion, there is no fatherland and no citizens, but only the oppressed and oppressors.

However, nature meant for J.-J. Rousseau is not the primitive animal existence of man, but his freedom and the direct development of innate abilities and drives. Addressing parents and educators, he urged them to develop naturalness in the child, instill a sense of freedom and independence, the desire for work, respect in him the person's personality and all its useful and reasonable inclinations. The desire for nature in J.-J. Rousseau manifested itself in a rejection of artificiality and in an attraction to everything natural, simple.

Child J.-J. Rousseau placed at the center of the educational process, but at the same time he opposed excessive indulgence of children, concessions to their demands, whims. Rejecting any form of upbringing based on the subordination of the child's will to the will of the educator, he at the same time argued that the child should not be left to himself, as this threatens his development.

The teacher must accompany the child in all his trials and experiences, guide his formation, promote his natural growth, create conditions for his development, but never impose his will on him. A child needs a certain environment in which he can gain independence and freedom, to realize the good beginnings inherent in him by nature.

In teaching, it is important, J.J. Rousseau believed, not to adapt knowledge to the level of the student, but to correlate it with his interests and experience. It is important to organize the transfer of knowledge so that the child takes on this task himself. For this, a pedagogical approach is needed, which is based on the meaning of the transmitted knowledge, taking into account the interests of each pupil.

J.-J. Rousseau constantly focused on the importance of labor in education. Labor instills in the child a sense of duty, responsibility for what he does. In addition, living in a society, a person is obliged to pay the cost of his maintenance with his labor. Labor is an inevitable human obligation. Labor education J.-J. Rousseau is associated with moral, mental and physical improvement. The task of moral education, according to J.-J. Rousseau, is to protect the child from the influence of a spoiled society, artificial culture and monitor the development of his own needs and interests. Moral education should be carried out after mental education, therefore the main prerequisite for moral education is the development of reason. And only then - the development of moral qualities, the formation of concepts about social relations.

J.-J. Rousseau, in principle, did not reject religion, but believed that a child needs a religion that would rely on the original meaning of the Gospel, cleansed of its misinterpretation by the church fathers. Religion, according to J.-J. Rousseau, should rely on philanthropy, on love for nature, on the "drives of the heart", on the preservation of human dignity.

Considering the actual problems of raising children, J.-J. Rousseau divided the child's life into four periods. In the first period - from the birth of a child to 2 years of age - he considered it necessary to pay main attention to physical education; in the second - from 2 to 12 years - the education of feelings; in the third - from 12 to 15 years - mental education; in the fourth - from 15 to 18 years old - moral education.

Initial education should be, according to J.-J. Rousseau, negative, excluding the influence of artificial culture on the nature of the child. This period is the most responsible, since, although the child feels his natural needs, he is not able to express them. Therefore, it is the mother who is more than anyone else responsible for this period in the life of her child, although the father, who is not relieved of the need to raise his children by any external circumstances, must strictly fulfill the duties assigned to him by nature.

The main pedagogical tools during this period are patience and perseverance, with which it is necessary to study the reasons, for example, of children's crying. At the same time, parents should be demanding and not rush to satisfy all children's requests. Tempering and constant physical exercise are very important for the child's bodily development at this stage.

The life of a child from 2 to 12 years old should be a period of education of feelings, since the activity of the mind without relying on the data of sensory experience is devoid of any content. J.-J. Rousseau opposed the use of books during this period of the child's development. The child must study the world himself, with the help of the senses, otherwise he has to take a lot on faith, i.e. use the minds of others.

J.-J. Rousseau considered the idea of ​​independent acquisition of knowledge by a child to be the leading one at the next stage - mental education, which, in his opinion, should be carried out without programs, schedules and textbooks. The child should be placed in a situation where he constantly asks questions and the teacher answers them. To useful sciences that a child should get acquainted with, Zh-Zh. Rousseau attributed geography, chemistry, physics, biology, which develop a child's interest and love for nature. Contemporary to him humanitarian subjects J.-J. Rousseau considered false sciences and suggested studying the ancient philosophers and writers. From modern books, he recommended only the novel by D. Defoe "Robinson Crusoe", which, in his opinion, demonstrates how communication with nature and work improve man morally.

One of the most important means of developing the mental powers of the child J.-J. Russo considered labor. However, at the same time he was opposed to narrow craft training. The child must learn to use all the tools most necessary in everyday life, must be familiar with the basics of various crafts. This, J.-J. Rousseau, will help him subsequently lead an honest and independent lifestyle.

In the process of labor training, according to J.-J. Rousseau, the child must attend various workshops, observe the work of artisans and, as far as possible, perform the work entrusted to him. The child's participation in the labor activity of adults not only gives him the opportunity to master labor skills, but also allows him to better understand the relationship between people. Labor activity must be combined with mental exercises so that one is a rest from the other. It is their combination that contributes to both the physical and mental development of the child.

J.-J. Rousseau believed that a child should be taught to live like a human being, and this should be done when a teenager enters the time of maturity, from the age of 15. This period J.-J. Rousseau called the period of "storms and passions", when there are frequent outbursts of emotions and emotional excitement. It is at this time that it is necessary to take care of the moral upbringing of not a child, but a young man.

J.-J. Rousseau considered the society of his day immoral. He saw the reason for this in the contradictions between the abilities and desires of people, in the desire to build their well-being at the expense of others, in the absence of balance between forces and will. He believed that in such a society it is very difficult to keep a young man in simplicity and innocence, just as it is difficult to protect him from depravity, inhumanity and cruelty. A young man should be introduced into the world of moral relations very carefully, step by step, since he who does not have any moral standards, he enters life with one innate passion - love for himself.

J.-J. Rousseau set three main tasks for moral education: the development of good feelings, good judgments and goodwill. First of all, a child and a young man need to develop positive emotions aimed at a humane attitude towards people, kindness, compassion. All this is achieved not by moralizing, but by direct communication with good people and good examples. J.-J. Rousseau advised to remove the young man from big cities, where people's morality is far from ideal.

Special attention in the moral education of J.-J. Rousseau allotted the study of history, which, as it were, allows you to see the scene of human life without participating in it. History makes it possible to select for education the most important material related to human relationships, which prepares the pupil to deal with difficulties in an independent life.

With the religion of J.-J. Rousseau proposed to introduce young people at the age of at least 18 years, since, in his opinion, a person really comes to understand God only in his mature years, when he is already able to understand what exactly he is looking for in religion, and he can choose for himself the religion to which his mind is drawn. A child, in principle, cannot have an idea of ​​God, but only repeats what adults suggest to him. J.-J. Rousseau recognized God, who gave people the consciousness of good and the understanding that happiness is in justice, God without mysticism and suppression of the will of man. A person must come to such a religion and such an understanding of an impersonal God.

Just as there is an age most favorable for learning, there is an age that is most favorable for fulfilling social duties — that is, after the age of 20. But it should be noted that the civil obligations of J.-J. Rousseau pinned only on the man.

He limited the life purpose of a woman to the role of wife and mother, believing that she did not need to delve into science. A woman should be able to sew, knit, cook, sing and dance. Her mind should develop not in reading, but in communicating with her parents, in the process of observing those people with whom she communicates.

A girl should be fostered with obedience and obedience to her husband, develop her physical capabilities so that she can give birth to healthy children. Unlike a youth of religion, a girl should be taught from childhood, as a girl, J.-J. Rousseau, she must practice the religion of her mother, having married - the religion of her husband. Limiting a woman's participation in public life, he considered it necessary to foster respect for her on the part of her husband and society.

This attitude of J.-J. Rousseau's approach to raising a woman, firstly, reflected the traditions of that time and, secondly, it was consistent with his idea that the participation of women in public life contradicts her natural purpose - to be a wife and mother.

His ideal of a free and whole person J.-J. Rousseau contrasted the rational culture of his contemporary 18th century. He saw the realization of this ideal in natural education. This concept of his was a real revolution in the pedagogical views of that time, not leaving aside the socio-political issues, for which his treatise "Emil, or On Education" was recognized as harmful to society. The book frightened reactionary leaders throughout Europe, and immediately after its publication, the French government issued a decree on the arrest of J.-J. Rousseau, which forced him to flee to Switzerland. But in Geneva, a decree was issued on the arrest of the author of "Emile", and the book itself was burned.

It should be noted that no other work devoted to the issues of raising children, either before or after Emil, had such a strong influence on the development of pedagogical thought. Followers of J.-J. Rousseau was attracted by his belief in the power of childish nature, the adherence of upbringing to the spontaneous development of the child, giving him broad freedom.

Position J.-J. Rousseau that freedom is one of the natural human rights, and the role of the teacher is to develop the activity, initiative of the child, in indirect and tactful leadership without coercion, was taken as a basis by the representatives of the concept of free education, which became widespread in the late XIX - early XX v.

Supporters of this trend put at the center of the child's educational process his interests, abilities, opportunities, desire for creativity, and saw the main task of the teacher in helping the child's natural development. Their activities were directed against drills and oppression of children, against formalism and cramming in teaching.

Many ideas of free education clearly manifested themselves in the theoretical views and practical activities of a number of teachers already at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries. So, I.G. Pestalozzi (1746-1827) considered it necessary to build relations between the educator and the child on a humane basis and demanded respect for the freedom and independence of the child's personality; F. Frebel (1782-1852) considered the development of the natural characteristics of the child, his self-disclosure, as the goal of upbringing; E. Kay (1849-1926) advocated the creation of conditions for self-expression and free development of the individual. These and other progressive teachers of the XIX - early XX century. largely relied on the ideas of J.-J. Russo.

Public education reform projects during the French Revolution (1789-1794)

In the late 80s. XVIII century the social situation in France has changed significantly: the economic upturn of the middle of the century has exhausted itself, the economic situation of the country has worsened, the unfolding social struggle ended with a revolution in 1789. Political and public figures of the new, republican France perceived the revolution as the beginning of a new era of humanity, while attaching great social importance to the renewal of culture, including education.

A number of projects for the organization of public education were submitted to the legislative institutions. Due to the outbreak of counter-revolution and reaction, these projects were not implemented, but the ideas of such, for example, public and political figures as J.A. Condorcet and L.M. Lepeletier, directed against the outdated system of education and training, left a noticeable mark in the history of pedagogy and were progressive for their time.

Jean Antoine Condorcet(1743-1794) was one of the most prominent representatives of the French Enlightenment: philosopher, mathematician, economist, politician - defender of the interests of the big bourgeoisie, he, like no one else, had a good idea of ​​the situation in the educational system of France. The dependence of school affairs on politics, on the state, the narrowness of traditional education and, as a result, the ignorance of the people led him to the idea of ​​the need for radical reforms in this area.

In his "Report on the General Organization of Public Education" (1792) Zh.A. Condorcet proposed making the education system independent of any political pressure. But since independence cannot be absolute, he hoped to place the activities of schools under the control of the assembly of people's representatives, the most incorruptible power, remote from private interests. J. A Condorcet saw the goal of education in discovering ways for people to satisfy their needs, in ensuring their well-being, knowledge and use of their rights and obligations, improvement in their profession, in the performance of public duties. Thus, he believed, each person will be able to use and develop their natural talents, and as a result, de facto equality of all citizens will be achieved.

Schools should be public, and education free and non-religious. Education should be universal, the same for everyone, but at the same time, it should provide an opportunity for the most gifted part of citizens to receive a higher education, deepen and expand it.

Especially J.A. Condorcet highlighted in his Report the idea that no public authority should have the right to prevent the spread of new truths and the teaching of theories opposed to its policies and interests - a thought that has not lost its significance in our time.

All education of J.A. Condorcet J.A. Condorcet proposed to divide into four stages: primary schools, secondary schools, institutes, lyceums.

At the first stage, children were to be taught what is necessary for independent activity: reading, writing, elements of grammar, the rules of arithmetic, simple methods of measurement, information about agriculture and crafts, the first concepts of morality, ethics and the principles of social order. For the development of the child's physical strength, it was supposed to use gymnastic exercises. Every 400 residents were supposed to have such a school and one teacher.

according to the project of Zh.A. Condorcet should have been designed for children from more or less wealthy families. Here the children were to acquire the knowledge needed in the crafts; in mathematics, natural history, chemistry, commerce. In an expanded volume, students of secondary schools were supposed to get acquainted with the life of society and the basics of morality. At schools of the second stage Zh.A. Condorcet considered it necessary to create libraries and classrooms equipped with the equipment necessary for the study of natural sciences. Such a school was to be opened in every administrative district and every city with a population of over 4 thousand inhabitants.

At the third stage of training, at institutes, according to the project of Zh.A. Condorcet, subjects related to practical activities were to be taught: agriculture, industry, martial arts, medicine, etc. Such educational institutions, according to Zh.A. Condorcet were to be established in every department.

At the fourth stage of education, in lyceums, scientists were supposed to be trained, people for whom science is the occupation of a whole life. Here, future teachers of schools and institutes were to receive education and training for practical activities. For the whole of France, J.A. Condorcet considered it sufficient to create nine lyceums.

To head the entire education system, according to J.A. Condorcet was supposed to be a National Society of Arts and Sciences of the type of the modern Academy of Sciences. The members of this organization were to determine the composition of teachers for all types of schools.

In general, the project of Zh.A. Condorcet was very progressive. Continuity of education levels, equality in the right to education of all people, secularity of the school, free education, strengthening of the role of natural sciences - all this spoke in favor of the project. However, it was not adopted, unfortunately, by the majority of the Legislative Assembly.

Further J.A. Condorcet in terms of democratization of education went Louis Michel Lepeletier(1760-1793). A nobleman by birth, during the revolution he was killed by the royal guard for voting in the Convention for the execution of the king. Shortly before the death of L.M. Lepeletier wrote the "Plan of National Education", which was reported by M. Robespierre at the Convention.

Referring to the project Zh.A. Condorcet, L.M. Lepeletier stressed that he himself dared to propose a much broader program that could contribute to the national revival of France by "creating a new people." He believed that it was necessary to solve a problem consisting of two parts: the people should be given, firstly, upbringing and, secondly, education. And if education, even if it is accessible to all, is the property of a limited number of members of society, then upbringing should be common to all.

He intended his project entirely for the poor, but he warned that if the rich is a reasonable person, then he will approve of it. He saw the goal of his project in the organization of education that is truly national, truly republican, truly accessible to everyone. For this, L.M. Lepeletier, it is necessary to issue a decree according to which all boys from 5 to 14 years old, without any distinction and without any exception, would be provided with public education at the expense of the republic, so that they, being under its protection, would have the same clothes, food, education and care. He suggested that the entire burden of the costs of maintaining these institutions should be borne by wealthy people.

Period from 5 to 12 years L.M. Lepeletier considered it decisive for the physical and moral development of a person. That is why children at this age need constant supervision and assistance. Up to five, the child should be left to the care of the mother, who should be assisted with advice, make for her the initial upbringing of the child not a burdensome burden, but a source of joy and hope.

According to L.M. Lepeletier, at the age of five, the Fatherland will receive a child from the hands of nature, and at the age of twelve it will make him a member of society. This period was considered by L.M. Lepeletier, most suitable for social education, he argued that this age is most suitable for studying not only various crafts, but also sciences. In addition, at this age, the child is already able to choose a future profession and begin to study it. At this stage, general upbringing and education should end, since each profession needs to be studied separately and it is impossible to teach everything in one school. Therefore, children should not be locked within the walls of the school, but should be led into workshops and fields.

L.M. Lepeletier proposed creating national education houses in cities and rural areas, each of which would accommodate from 400 to 600 students. These facilities should be located close to where the children live so that parents can visit them frequently. One teacher should have 50 students, which will not be burdensome for him if the older children help in the education of the younger ones.

The task of such schools was to be "the preparation of the primary substance," equipping children with information "equally useful to citizens in any situation." First of all, this should have concerned physical education, which should develop strength in children, temper them, teach them to endure changes in weather, fatigue. To do this, it is necessary to comply with the regime, which is mandatory for all. A child from a poor family will find at home the same conditions as in school, and a child from a wealthy family, accustomed to a life that pampered him at home, will understand that circumstances may arise in life in which the "saving harshness of upbringing" will be useful to him.

Another benefit should be the habit of work as a result of upbringing. Children should be fostered with courage in starting difficult work, energy, perseverance in bringing it to the end, i.e. everything that characterizes a hardworking person. Managing your life, obeying precise discipline - these are two more habits that are imperative to instill in children.

Such upbringing, according to L.M. Lepeletier was supposed to form "children's mores", which would eventually become "national mores", which would give birth to a new young generation in France and lead to a renewal of the mores of society.

After lengthy discussions, the Convention decided to create houses of national education, but a few months later this decision was canceled. The idea of ​​L.M. Lepeletier, thus, was not implemented, although his ideas had an impact on the subsequent development of pedagogical thought in European countries.

State-legal doctrine of Jean-Jacques Rousseau on the emergence and structure of state power

Ilya Maksimov,

Post-graduate student of the Department of State and Legal Disciplines of the Volga State Academy of Water Transport.

Scientific adviser - Doctor of Law, Professor, Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation, Member of the Russian Academy of Legal Sciences

Kozhevnikov Sergey Nikitich.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau came out for his time with a radical political program, the leitmotif of which was the idea of ​​the democratic organization of state life through a "social contract". The idea that the state arises from a voluntary union, noted in Discourse on Inequality, is described in more detail in Political Economy and later in The Social Contract. In his works, Rousseau examines not so much the origin and development of the state as the principles of state law, in other words, the foundations of a legitimate state.

Whatever the contradictions, Rousseau's philosophy, primarily socio-political, had a significant impact on European culture and even history, if we talk about the Great French Revolution. Rousseau's ideological heritage does not lose its significance today. Ranging from more or less obvious (like reasoning about the need to renegotiate a social contract in African countries) to extravagant (imposing his ideas on the logical structure of peer-to-peer Internet networks).

Rousseau distinguishes between natural and social inequality. Of course, he recognizes that nature creates people different, but these differences do not determine social inequality - it is caused by private property. Let me emphasize what is new that Rousseau introduces into the understanding of the causes of inequality: first, it is social inequality; secondly, it arose historically; thirdly, it is associated with the emergence of private property.

How, in Rousseau's opinion, how did private property really appear? Here Rousseau makes a number of interesting guesses. First, the initial seizure of land took place: “The first one who fenced off a piece of land came up with the idea of ​​saying,“ This is mine, ”and found people simple enough to believe that he was the true founder of civil society. How many crimes, how many wars, how many disasters and horrors would be averted from the human race by one who, having pulled out the pillars or filled the ditches that served as borders, would exclaim, addressing people: “Beware of listening to this deceiver! You are lost if you forget that the fruit belongs to everyone, and the earth belongs to nobody! " ... Secondly, he connects the emergence of private property with an increase in labor productivity, thanks to which it became possible to obtain a surplus product, and hence the possibility of exploiting one subject by another. Private property became the basis of the future civil society and the cause of property and subsequently political inequality that arose in it.

The state and state power arose on the remarkable conjecture of Rousseau, after the emergence of social inequality. Under the pretext of the need to establish civil peace, the "rich", as Rousseau writes, offered the "poor" to form state power, but the latter did not make sense to refuse: after all, they too had to strengthen "tranquility and convenience", although the creation of the state promised predominant benefits again rich people. This consideration of Rousseau was assessed by K. Marx as "worthy of attention."

The theory of the social contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau arose on the soil sufficiently prepared by his predecessors. According to the teachings of Thomas Hobbes, the people in the "natural state" did not exist as a "person." Consequently, people, being in a state of "war of all against all," were a "multitude, consisting of individuals", a "crowd". Precisely because the "state of nature" was a state of anarchy and lawlessness, "the rule of the crowd", T. Hobbes considered it natural to create state power, the power of which would put an end to this state of affairs. Thus, in his teaching, the social contract is one and consists of one agreement, namely, an agreement on the establishment of government. Hobbes did not recognize this treaty as a treaty of equals, since people alienated all their rights in favor of the monarch and did not receive any rights in return.

Samuel Pufendorf put forward the concept of a treaty consisting of two agreements. She allowed him, in contrast to Hobbes, to consider the people as a subject of law. Pufendorf substantiated the theory of the contract, according to which the people are the creator of the state. He noted that the first agreement, which should be called the "Association Agreement", is a "stage for the state." The people conclude the second element of the treaty, that is, the "pact of government", by virtue of which a state arises, "which is a single Person, endowed with reason and will, performing actions of a special kind, different from the actions of each citizen individually."

In turn, Rousseau denied that the "state of nature" was a state of war "all against all," and therefore criticized the model of social agreement proposed by T. Hobbes. According to Rousseau's definition, "the natural state is such a state when concern for our self-preservation least of all harms the concern of others for self-preservation, and this state, therefore, is the most favorable for the world and most suitable for the human race." A person, passing from a natural state to a civil one, acquires moral freedom, "for to act only under the influence of one's desire is slavery, and to obey the law that you have established for yourself is freedom."

For Rousseau, there was no doubt that the social contract was not a contract for the establishment of government. The people are the people before they submit themselves to the rule of the king. He believed that a people becomes a people at the moment when each person makes a moral choice, forming an association of people. Rousseau's social contract is an agreement of a very special kind. It is an agreement that the people make with "themselves, that is, the people as sovereign with private individuals as subjects." It is this act of expression of will that forms the state as a social organism, assuming that people have reached such a level of development that they form a "combination" of their forces or "concentrate their wills" in state power. Despite the difference in the desires of people, it is possible to distinguish something in common in them, if we eliminate individual extremes - this is a common interest, which Rousseau calls "the common will", opposing it to the "will of all." “There is often a considerable difference between the will of all and the general will. This second one observes only general interests, the first - private interests and represents the sum of the expressions of the will of other persons. " The area in which the general will is affirmed - not as a mechanical sum of the interests of individuals, not as their simple totality - is primarily the area of ​​state legislation, the analysis of which makes it possible to understand that it is not the majority that should matter here, for it can be wrong, but a truly public feeling. The common will is embodied in the sovereign people. Rousseau, thus, points to the person, not only as an object of state-power relations, but also as a subject (he is a citizen, he is also a private person, he puts the interests of the state above all else and, at the same time, pursues his own goals ).

Therefore, Rousseau argues that the basis of any rule of law is not an agreement between the ruler and the people. Only an agreement of equal parties can be the basis of any legitimate authority among people. Voluntarily accepted by all, the social agreement preserves the rights and free will of each member of the association. Everyone thus voluntarily transfers his personality and all his powers under the supreme guidance of the common will.

What does an individual strive for when he strives for an independent and independent private life? He wants guarantees against any outside interference. Establishing a universal limit for interference in other people's affairs is in fact a general restriction of freedom, but this is the only way to guarantee the peace and independence of everyone.

Since the ideal for Rousseau is a “natural person”, kind and free, various mechanisms of government should be aimed at educating and restoring what a person has lost with the emergence of inequality and property. And first of all, a person needs to return freedom. In a state, freedom cannot be unlimited, and a citizen remains free if he obeys only the law: “There can be ... no freedom without laws, not when someone is above the law: even in his natural state, a person is free only thanks to his natural the law that governs everyone. A free people obeys but does not serve; it is governed, but it has no masters; he obeys laws, but only laws, and it is by virtue of laws that he does not obey people. "

In his "Treatise on the Origin of Inequality" Rousseau has already put forward the idea of ​​the possibility of eliminating the first social contract (consider the apparatus of the state) by violent actions of the people, since the rights of the latter are violated. While other philosophers-enlighteners hoped for enlightenment in general and an enlightened monarch, the recognition of the legitimacy of the revolutionary actions of the people is one of the distinguishing features of Rousseau's sociological concept. However, for him, the revolution is a kind of deviation from the rules of the social contract if it is violated. Violence, according to Rousseau, is required in order to eliminate the consequences of a perverted, untrue, "alienated" civilization, and if the ideal in the form of the original "natural equality" is no longer revived, then at least one should strive to get closer to it.

Political despotism is not based on law, but on brute force and intimidation. But "force does not create rights", and citizens, on the contrary, retain their full right to act by armed force against the government. Thus, the social contract is restored to its original purity, “the oppressors are oppressed. This is the negation of the negation. " All these, as F. Engels noted, were deeply dialectical ideas.

The approval of laws by citizens should also be attributed to the democratic principles of state structure, since the legislator only develops laws, and the powers to adopt them belong exclusively to the sovereign.

Rousseau distinguishes between three basic and acceptable forms of government - democracy, aristocracy and monarchy.

The most acceptable political system can only be a republic, but this term he designates any state governed by laws, whatever the form of government.

The form of government recommended by Rousseau depends on the size of the state. In small states, democracy is desirable and more acceptable, i.e. a democratic republic in the proper sense of the word; in larger ones, as, for example, in France - the electoral aristocracy, i.e. the exercise of executive functions by a small group of individuals strictly accountable to the people; in the vast and very populous - the monarchy, that is, the transfer of executive power into the hands of one person. Democracy, according to Rousseau, is the best of the forms, since the other two forms are easier to degenerate into tyrannical, but all three constitute varieties of government based on a social contract, and until they degenerated into their opposite and the power did not violate the sovereignty of the people, completely each of these three forms is permissible in its conditions.

According to Rousseau, sovereignty is inalienable, one and indivisible. The power that is often mistaken for a part of the sovereign (legislative, executive and judicial power) is in fact subordinate to him and always presupposes the presence of a single supreme will, the hegemony of the supreme power, which cannot be divided without destroying.

Rejecting the idea of ​​separation of powers as interpreted by Montesquieu, the author of the "Social Contract" at the same time recognizes the need to separate state functions and delineate bodies that represent state power within their competence.

How, according to Rousseau, should the executive branch be rationally assigned to the government? It is impossible and unnecessary to do without the executive branch as an “intermediary” between the nation and individual citizens. The people as a whole exercise legislative power through a plebiscite, but delegates all private issues to their proxies for decision. Karl Marx made for himself in this regard the following extract from Rousseau: if the general will rushes to private objects, then the people are distracted from general goals to private benefits and become corrupted. Any executive power, from the point of view of Rousseau, has a right to exist only as far as it is authorized by a sovereign people, otherwise it is not obliged to obey it. In the executive branch, Rousseau sees power subordinate to the legislative branch. Executive power belongs, in the state of Rousseau, to state bodies, elected by the people-sovereign from among themselves and for a certain period. These state bodies are undoubtedly subordinate to the sovereign people, and they exercise their powers as long as there is the consent of the people, who have the right not only to change officials, but also to change the form of government.

According to the teachings of Rousseau, the threat to political freedom cannot be threatened by the legislature; it, as a common will judging objects of common interest, is always just; the danger can only be threatened by the executive branch, whose bearers are inclined to abuse power in their own interests and to the detriment of common interests. The executive power should, therefore, be limited by a number of legal norms that would subordinate it to the legislative power. It is worth noting that, despite the criticism of the theory of separation of powers, Rousseau accepts and proves the necessity of this principle of this theory.

Legislative power in Rousseau's teachings is closely related to sovereignty. This is the will of the entire sovereign people and therefore should regulate issues of a general nature that concern everyone.

For Rousseau, the judgment is indisputable: only the people can have full legislative power. He alone is a sovereign, whose rights in creating laws can neither be alienated from him, nor transferred to someone else. Since people unite into a single whole, subjecting themselves to it, submission must be fair. Perhaps this is only when the laws will be issued by all citizens together and for all.

As you can see, even the People's Deputies Russo considers insufficiently plenipotentiary representatives of the people - they are not and cannot be its representatives, according to Russo, they are only his authorized representatives and cannot decide anything on their own and decide finally: “Sovereign, having no other power, besides the legislative force, it acts only through laws; and since the laws are only genuine acts of the common will, the sovereign can act only when the people are assembled. " At the same time, Rousseau feels that the idea of ​​self-government of the people is not always feasible, therefore he assumes that the social management of the people-sovereign is feasible only within the framework of small states.

Rousseau is convinced that to ensure unlimited power for the people in the state means to ensure the rule of laws that are just and therefore stable.

At the same time, defining law as a public and formal proclamation of a common will regarding an object of common interest, Rousseau asked himself “Laws! Where are they? And where are they observed? .. everywhere, under the name of laws, self-interest and human passions reign. " This means that his normative understanding of the law, the general will, the general interest is in contradiction with the actual state of affairs. This contradiction, on the one hand, highlights the ambivalence of the basic concepts of Rousseau's teachings, and on the other hand, realistically describes the actual social relations, thereby overcoming the philosophical and historical sentimentalism characteristic of this genius thinker.

As for the judiciary, Rousseau pays much less attention to it, but emphasizes the strict binding of its laws, at the same time, emphasizing its necessary organizational independence in relation to both the legislative and the executive branch.

Rousseau attracted widespread attention with his advanced views on the establishment of supreme power by social contract. The principles of contractual theory were partially implemented by the adoption of the "Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen" in August 1789 in Paris, as well as the approval of the Constitution of the United States of America.

The ideas of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's doctrine of law and state were developed by a number of scholars such as Holbach, Helvetius and Diderot.

In addition to defining the principles of state law, that is, the foundations of a lawful state, Rousseau expressed the most important guidelines for determining the socio-political prerequisites for human rights and freedoms. The current constitutions of the United States and European states, international agreements containing humanistic norms of law, allow us to conclude that the contribution of J.-J. Rousseau's developing socio-political theory remains relevant to this day.

Literature

1. Dlugach T.B. A feat of common sense - M., 1995.

2. I.S. Narsky I.S. Western European philosophy of the 18th century - M., 1973.

3. Rousseau J.-J. Treatises - M., 1969.

4. Call. ed. J.-.J. Rousseau et Contra / Ed. Burlaka D. - SPB, 2005.

5. Call. ed. On dignity, freedom and human rights - N. Novgorod, 2009.

6. Voinikanis E.A., Kocheshkova E.A. Rereading Rousseau: History, Antiquity and Problems of Democracy / State Power and Local Self-Government - 2010. - No. 2.

7. Oizerman T.I. Fruitful contradiction of philosophical, historical and socio-political views of J.-J. Russo / Questions of Philosophy - 2009. - No. 5.

8. Filaretov N.I. On the specifics of the contract theory J.-J. Russo / Actual problems of Russian law - 2009. - № 1. Voinikanis E.A., Kocheshkova E.A. "Rereading Rousseau: history, antiquity and problems of democracy" / "State power and local government." No. 2. 2010, p. 40.

Oizerman T.I. The fruitful contradiction of philosophical, historical and socio-political views of J.-J. Russo. Philosophy questions. 2009. No. 5.P. 145.

Socio-political situation in France in the middle of the 18th century. Educational philosophy. The capitalist system took shape in France long before the bourgeois revolution of 1789-1794. In a country mainly agrarian, in the second half of the 18th century, capitalist manufacture became widespread. But feudal relations strongly impeded the development of capitalism.
The entire population of the country was divided into three classes. The first estate was considered to be the clergy, who owned vast lands. It was exempted from paying any taxes and had its own court. The second estate was the nobility, which was the owner of a significant part of the land. Feudal rights gave this class the opportunity to widely exploit the peasants. The third estate had no privileges; most of it was the peasantry, which was completely powerless. The material position of the peasantry was poor as a result of feudal payments and heavy state taxes.
The third estate was not united; this also included artisans, workers, the urban poor. The leading position in the third estate was occupied by merchants, manufacturers and bankers. All of them were in opposition to the feudal order, despite the different conditions of their lives. The bourgeoisie in the middle of the 18th century, being part of the third estate, did not immediately, with hesitation, join the powerful popular movement and lead its actions against the king, the privileges of the clergy and nobility, the estate system of education.
The popular movement against the feudal system had a great influence on the entire course of political life in the 18th century. During this period, the struggle of writers and scientists, the spokesmen of bourgeois ideology, against the feudal order was revived. In their writings, they smashed the feudal worldview, smashed official religions (some enlighteners were atheists) long before the onset of the revolution. In the 50s-80s of the 18th century, in the pre-revolutionary years, their speeches acquired a particularly sharp character.
The French enlighteners sharply criticized religion as a stronghold of feudalism, the feudal system and feudal ideology. They defended, based on Locke's position, the contractual theory of the origin of the state (Rousseau, Diderot, etc.) and argued that in his "natural state" a person always had a "natural right" to freedom, equality and brotherhood.
The enlighteners of the 18th century were waiting for the onset of a new era, the kingdom of reason on Earth.
At this time, the ideologists of the bourgeoisie sincerely considered themselves representatives of not only the third estate. According to Engels, they acted "in the role of representatives not of any particular class, but of all suffering humanity" (K. Marx and F. Engels, Vol. 19, p. 190).
But after the bourgeoisie seized power into its own hands, in an effort to secure its rule, it launched an offensive against the working people, against the developing working class.
The French enlighteners believed in the mighty power of education. They were convinced that by raising a new person, they would thereby re-create the whole world. Through enlightenment, lies, prejudices, ignorance of the past will be destroyed, everything negative that is characteristic of feudalism will disappear.
An outstanding place among the French enlighteners was occupied by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and materialist philosophers.

Life of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Rousseau was born in 1712 in Geneva, the son of an artisan watchmaker. He received no formal education. For many years he wandered around France and Switzerland, tried a number of professions. Already an established person, thirty years old, Rousseau arrived in Paris, where he met the new bourgeois intelligentsia of that time, with its best representatives, publicists and philosophers. In 1749, the Dijon Academy announced a competition for an essay on the theme "Has the progress of the arts and sciences contributed to the improvement or deterioration of morals?" On the advice of Diderot Rousseau undertook to write a work on this topic. In this work, he decisively opposed social inequality, against aristocrats and idlers, against the culture and science of feudal society. For this work, Rousseau received the Dijon Academy Prize.
In 1755, Rousseau's second work appeared - "Discourse on the origin and foundations of inequality between people", in which there are elements of dialectics. This was followed by the "Social Contract" (1762). Rousseau argued that inequality grew with civilization. In The Social Contract, developing Locke's contractual theory, he contrasted civilized (ie, feudal) society as an ideal with a certain society in a supposedly “natural state”, when people were equal and free, and then renounced their rights in order to preserve their labor property. Rousseau castigated tyranny, the oppression of the exploiters and argued that a government that does not meet the interests of the people is illegal, it violates the original social contract, according to which people voluntarily transferred some of their rights to their own elected authorities, obliged to serve the people. It was a call in the form of a literary work to overthrow the king and feudal foundations.
In 1762, Russo's novel-treatise "Emile, or On Education" was published. He made the author famous all over the world. In it, Rousseau showed the way of educating a free man in a new, that is, bourgeois, society. The appearance of "Emil" aroused indignation among aristocrats and clergy. For the freedom of thought expressed in it, although Rousseau was not an atheist, the book was burned in one of the squares of Paris, and its author was forced to flee abroad. Only shortly before his death, sick and broken physically and mentally, he was able to return to his homeland. Rousseau died in 1778.
Rousseau's works deeply excited the minds of the advanced pre-revolutionary bourgeois society, their influence extended far beyond the borders of France.

Socio-political and philosophical views of Rousseau. Power and wealth created inequality, Rousseau argued, and man therefore lost his freedom. “Man was born free, yet he is everywhere in chains,” he wrote. He believed that the power should belong to the people themselves, he demanded that everyone should work. He called for only small property to be allowed, and the property of the noble feudal lords to be destroyed. This teaching of Rousseau in his time was revolutionary. It expressed the interests of small owners (artisans, peasants) and led to the establishment of the bourgeois system. Rousseau's ideal is petty-bourgeois labor property and a social structure based on this property and on the labor of everyone.
Considering the issue of the perception of the world around us, Rousseau reasoned like a sensualist: there is nothing in our consciousness that would not be received through sensations, through the senses. But he could not draw materialistic conclusions from this position. He denied the official religion and was a supporter of the "religion of feeling", believing that each person is free to believe in his own way. According to him, "everything is good that comes out of the hands of the creator of the universe, everything degenerates in the hands of man."
Man, according to Rousseau, is spoiled by modern society. Hence the conclusion: a child should be raised outside a spoiled society, away from civilization, in the "bosom of nature."
The existence of people must be supported by personal labor. There can be no normal human life without labor. But in an unjust, spoiled world, many appropriate the results of someone else's labor. Truly free is a person who lives by his labor. According to Rousseau, the task is to educate such a person who would not depend on anyone, would live the fruits of his labors, value his freedom and know how to defend it. The person who values ​​his freedom will, of course, learn to respect the freedom of others, based on work.
Rousseau said that it is not necessary to educate the children of workers, they are already brought up by life itself. It is necessary to re-educate the feudal lords, aristocrats, properly educate their children, and the world will become different. Therefore, the hero of his work "Emil, or On Education", he makes Emil, who comes from a noble family. As a result of the upbringing he received, he must become a free-thinker and live by his own labor.

Natural and free upbringing. Children should be brought up, according to Rousseau, naturally, in accordance with nature. This means that in upbringing, one must follow the nature of the child, take into account his age characteristics. “Nature wants children to be children before they become adults,” Rousseau wrote. He believed that education is received from three sources: from nature, from the people around him and from things. Education by nature, in his opinion, is carried out through the "internal" development of human abilities, the development of the sense organs; upbringing by people is teaching a person to use the development of these abilities and organs; and finally, upbringing from things is a person's own experience, acquired by him from the things that he encounters and which affect him. The correct upbringing will be when all three factors (upbringing by nature, people, things or external circumstances) act in concert, in one direction.
Rousseau put free education in direct connection with natural education. The first of the natural human rights, he said, is freedom. Relying on this position, he opposed the scholastic school with its cramming, harsh discipline, corporal punishment and suppression of the child's personality. He demanded to respect the personality of the child, to take into account his interests and requests. This is the positive meaning of his call for free education.
Rousseau attached great importance to the guiding role of the educator, but understood this role in his own way, in his own way. The educator, he said, only leads his pupil to the solution of the issue, guides his interests in such a way that the child himself does not notice it, has mainly an indirect effect. He organizes the entire environment, all the influences surrounding the child so that they suggest certain solutions. He denied coercion as a method of education.

Age periodization. Rousseau divided the life of his pupil into four periods. The first period - from birth to 2 years old - is the time when the focus should be on the physical education of children. The second period - from 2 to 12 years, in his words, the period of "sleep of the mind", when the child can not yet reason and think logically, when it is necessary to develop mainly "external feelings", when the child's forces accumulate in order to find his way out already at an older age. The third period is from 12 to 15 years, during these years mental education is widely developed, the mental needs of the child are satisfied. The fourth period - "the period of storms and passions" - from the age of 15 to adulthood, when predominantly moral education is carried out.
Rousseau's thoughts about the age differences of the child are in accordance with his views on the natural capacity of upbringing and are not devoid of dialectics. He strove to find the leading principle for each of the stages of the natural development of the child, to which the main attention in the process of education should be directed during this period. Moreover, each of the steps is closely related to the other.
Rousseau sought to deeply understand human nature and identify the specifics of its development. However, he could not correctly indicate the laws of the child's development. It is not true that a child from 2 to 12 years old seems to be deprived of the opportunity to think logically, just like the assertion that moral concepts are inaccessible to children of this age.
Rousseau did not clearly separate development from upbringing, thus he kind of biologized the very process of upbringing. But it is essential that he demanded to take into account the age characteristics of children. He also rightly wrote that each child brings with him to life a special temperament that determines his abilities and character and which should be changed or developed and improved. He strongly objected to the stencil, the uniform approach to education. The task of the educator is to know well the age characteristics of the child, to deeply study his individual inclinations and abilities.
In early childhood (up to two years old), physical education is the basis of everything. If possible, the mother should feed the baby herself. Usually the child is swaddled, laid so that his head remains motionless, legs straightened, arms extended along the body. “Happiness if he is allowed to breathe,” exclaims Rousseau. So they immediately take away the child's freedom, but this cannot be done, one should not interfere with nature.
Russo dwells in detail on Emil's physical education. He indicates how to temper the child and strengthen his physical strength.
From the age of two, a new period of upbringing begins. It is not necessary at this age to force the child to reason, it is not necessary to read all sorts of instructions to the child, to force him to memorize stories and fairy tales. At this age, according to Rousseau, it is necessary mainly to develop the external feelings of the child in every possible way. Rousseau gives a number of indications on how to develop these feelings. It is still necessary to work intensively on strengthening the health of the child, his physical development. You shouldn't teach him in the literal sense of the word yet. Let the child measure, weigh, count and compare everything himself when he feels the need for it. It would be nice for a child under 12 not to know books at all; but if he learned to read, let his first and only book be "Robinson Crusoe", whose hero on a desert island did everything necessary for his simple life in nature.
According to Rousseau, a child at this age does not yet have moral concepts, but the educational role of an example is undoubtedly great at this time. No moral, no abstract concepts are available to a child under 12 years old, but what is associated with the knowledge of things themselves can still help the formation of separate abstract concepts. And Rousseau believed that a child at this age may well learn one important idea - the idea of ​​property. Emil wants to garden and plants beans, but on the gardener Robert's land, exactly in the place where, it turns out, Robert has already planted melons. From the clash between Emile and Robert, the child learns how the idea of ​​property naturally goes back to the right of "first possession through labor." Thus, Rousseau, contradicting his main theses about the impossibility of forming abstract concepts in a child at this age, believes that the idea of ​​property can become quite accessible to the child's understanding.
Rejecting punishment, Rousseau puts forward the method of "natural consequences". The child's freedom can only be limited by things. A child, faced with nature, will undoubtedly understand that it is necessary to obey its laws. The same considerations should be used in the basis of relations with people. If a child breaks everything he touches, do not get angry, strive only to remove from him everything that he can spoil. Here he broke the chair he was using, do not rush to give him a new one. Let him feel all the inconveniences of not having a chair. If a child breaks the glass in the window of his room, do not insert a new one, "it is better to grab a runny nose than to grow up insane." But if the child continues to break glass, it is recommended to lock him up in a dark room, which Rousseau considered not a punishment, but a "natural consequence" of the child's misconduct.
By the age of twelve, Emil is physically strong, independent, knows how to quickly navigate and grasp the most important, he learned the world around him through his external senses. And he is fully prepared to enter the third period of his development, when mental and labor education is being carried out. At this age, the child, according to Rousseau, still does not have sufficient moral concepts and cannot properly understand the relationship between people, so he must study what is associated with the nature around him. When choosing subjects for study, it is necessary to proceed from the interest of the child. Naturally, the child's interest is directed to what he sees, and therefore he is interested in geography, astronomy, natural history. Rousseau developed an original method of obtaining this knowledge by a child, based on his independent study of phenomena. He puts Emil in the position of a researcher, discovering scientific truths, inventing a compass, etc.
Russo's didactics is based on the development of a child's self-activity, the ability to observe, and ingenuity. Everything should be presented to the child's perception with maximum clarity. In his opinion, visualization is nature itself, the very facts of life, with which Emil is directly acquainted. Trying to draw the mental education of a new, free person, Rousseau failed to connect the child's personal experience with the experience of humanity expressed in science. He is for real knowledge that should be obtained not from books, but from nature. At the same time, he clearly showed the great importance of educating a child's observation, inquisitiveness and activity, the importance for teaching him direct communication with nature and life.
Physical labor is an inevitable duty of a social person. "Rich or poor, powerful or weak, every idle citizen is a rogue." Therefore, a free person must own various types of agricultural and handicraft labor, then he can really earn his bread and preserve his freedom. Emil is trained in a number of rewarding professions.
First of all, the child learns the carpentry craft, which Russo values ​​very much in educational terms, and then gets acquainted with a number of other crafts. Emil lives the life of a craftsman, he is imbued with respect for the man of labor, labor itself and labor communication. He eats bread that he himself earned. Labor is a social duty of a free person, it is also an educational tool.
Emil is now prepared for life, and in the sixteenth year, Rousseau brings him back to society. The fourth period is coming - the period of moral education, and it can be given only in society. The corrupted city is no longer afraid of Emil, who is sufficiently tempered from the city's temptations.
Rousseau, a representative of the class that will soon enter the revolutionary struggle, is sincerely convinced that the best people of the "third estate" are the bearers of universal human ideals. Therefore, we must teach Emil to love all people. And Rousseau puts forward three tasks of moral education: this is the education of good feelings, good judgments and goodwill.
Let the young man observe pictures of human suffering, need and grief, he will see good examples; not moral reasoning, but real deeds bring up good feelings in him. The education of good judgments is carried out, according to Rousseau, by studying the biographies of great people, studying history. Goodwill can only be nurtured by doing good deeds.
At this age, Rousseau considered it necessary to give his pupil and sex education. First of all, he proposed eliminating everything harmful and exciting: reading books of inappropriate content, a pampered and sedentary life; a young man must live an active life: move, engage in physical labor, be in the fresh air for a long time. Rousseau believed that it would be desirable to avoid possible questions about sexuality on the part of children; but if such a question is asked, it is better to "silence the child than to answer with a lie." Such an approach, in his opinion, will not surprise the pupil, since before the teacher did not answer questions that did not correspond to the child's understanding. When the teacher finds Emil sufficiently prepared, he must answer seriously, simply, without any confusion, not allowing children to learn about sex life from the outside, from an unclean source.
Rousseau believed that before the age of 17-18, a young man should not talk about religion. But he was convinced that Emil himself would gradually come to the knowledge of the divine principle. He was against communicating religious truths to children. Real religion, he said, is the religion of the heart. As a deist, Rousseau believed that, thinking about the wise structure of the universe, a child comes to the idea of ​​its creator.

Raising a woman. Rousseau ponders with great attention the question of which wife to choose for Emile.
The upbringing of Emile Sophie's bride must be the opposite of that of her fiancé. The appointment of a woman, in Rousseau's understanding, is completely different from the appointment of a man. She must be brought up for the home. Adaptation to the opinion of others, the absence of independent judgments, even of one's own religion, submission to someone else's will - this is the lot of a woman. Rousseau believed that the "natural state" of a woman is addiction, and "girls feel made to obey," that no serious mental work is needed for a girl. The sharp contradiction in the content of the upbringing of a man and a woman in Rousseau is understandable - he sees his ideal of a family in the family of an artisan, a petty bourgeois. This reasoning by Rousseau is in keeping with his petty-bourgeois nature and is reactionary.

The value of Rousseau's pedagogical theory. Rousseau occupied an important place among the philosophers and educators in the ideological preparation of the French Revolution of 1789. Despite a number of contradictions and mistakes, his pedagogical views played their historically progressive role. His views were the complete opposite of feudal pedagogy and full of ardent love for the child. Rousseau demanded active teaching methods, taking into account the age characteristics of the child, labor education, and a close connection between learning and life.
After the French bourgeois revolution of 1789-1794 was completed, bourgeois teachers began to be wary of Rousseau's pedagogical ideas. Democrat Rousseau appears to be dangerous, his thoughts on educating an active, independently thinking, free person ran counter to the reactionary ideology of a strengthened bourgeois society.
NK Krupskaya stressed that Rousseau's legacy “is renounced by the modern, decrepit bourgeoisie. Her ancestors, who had not yet separated the interests of their class from the cause of the people, extolled Rousseau; the present bourgeoisie treats Rousseau coldly, condescendingly, and although traditionally calls him “great”, it invariably adds “utopian”. Moreover, by utopia he understands not only what is really utopian in the works of Rousseau, but also his democracy, his respect for “man”, for “labor” (Krupskaya N.K. Ped. Op. In 10 volumes, vol. 1, p. 265).

Popular articles of the site from the section "Dreams and Magic"

N. A. Konstantinov, E. N. Medynsky, M. F. Shabaeva

Socio-political situation in France in the middle of the 18th century. Educational philosophy.

The capitalist system took shape in France long before the bourgeois revolution of 1789-1794. In a country mainly agrarian, in the second half of the 18th century, capitalist manufacture became widespread. But feudal relations strongly impeded the development of capitalism.

The entire population of the country was divided into three classes. The first estate was considered to be the clergy, who owned vast lands. It was exempted from paying any taxes and had its own court. The second estate was the nobility, which was the owner of a significant part of the land. Feudal rights gave this class the opportunity to widely exploit the peasants. The third estate had no privileges; most of it was the peasantry, which was completely powerless. The material position of the peasantry was poor as a result of feudal payments and heavy state taxes.

The third estate was not united; this also included artisans, workers, the urban poor. The leading position in the third estate was occupied by merchants, manufacturers and bankers. All of them were in opposition to the feudal order, despite the different conditions of their lives. The bourgeoisie in the middle of the 18th century, being part of the third estate, did not immediately, with hesitation, join the powerful popular movement and lead its actions against the king, the privileges of the clergy and nobility, the estate system of education.

The popular movement against the feudal system had a great influence on the entire course of political life in the 18th century. During this period, the struggle of writers and scientists, the spokesmen of bourgeois ideology, against the feudal order was revived. In their writings, they smashed the feudal worldview, smashed official religions (some enlighteners were atheists) long before the onset of the revolution. In the 50s-80s of the 18th century, in the pre-revolutionary years, their speeches acquired a particularly sharp character.

The French enlighteners sharply criticized religion as a stronghold of feudalism, the feudal system and feudal ideology. They defended, based on Locke's position, the contractual theory of the origin of the state (Rousseau, Diderot, etc.) and argued that in his "natural state" a person always had a "natural right" to freedom, equality and brotherhood.

The enlighteners of the 18th century were waiting for the onset of a new era, the kingdom of reason on Earth.

At this time, the ideologists of the bourgeoisie sincerely considered themselves representatives of not only the third estate. According to Engels, they acted "in the role of representatives not of any particular class, but of all suffering humanity" (K. Marx and F. Engels, Vol. 19, p. 190).

But after the bourgeoisie seized power into its own hands, in an effort to secure its rule, it launched an offensive against the working people, against the developing working class.

The French enlighteners believed in the mighty power of education. They were convinced that by raising a new person, they would thereby re-create the whole world. Through enlightenment, lies, prejudices, ignorance of the past will be destroyed, everything negative that is characteristic of feudalism will disappear.

An outstanding place among the French enlighteners was occupied by Jean-Jacques Rousseau and materialist philosophers.

Life of Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

Rousseau was born in 1712 in Geneva, the son of an artisan watchmaker. He received no formal education. For many years he wandered around France and Switzerland, tried a number of professions. Already an established person, thirty years old, Rousseau arrived in Paris, where he met the new bourgeois intelligentsia of that time, with its best representatives, publicists and philosophers. In 1749, the Dijon Academy announced a competition for an essay on the theme "Has the progress of the arts and sciences contributed to the improvement or deterioration of morals?" On the advice of Diderot Rousseau undertook to write a work on this topic. In this work, he decisively opposed social inequality, against aristocrats and idlers, against the culture and science of feudal society. For this work, Rousseau received the Dijon Academy Prize.

In 1755, Rousseau's second work appeared - "Discourse on the origin and foundations of inequality between people", in which there are elements of dialectics. This was followed by the "Social Contract" (1762). Rousseau argued that inequality grew with civilization. In The Social Contract, developing Locke's contractual theory, he contrasted civilized (ie, feudal) society as an ideal with a certain society in a supposedly “natural state”, when people were equal and free, and then renounced their rights in order to preserve their labor property. Rousseau castigated tyranny, the oppression of the exploiters and argued that a government that does not meet the interests of the people is illegal, it violates the original social contract, according to which people voluntarily transferred some of their rights to their own elected authorities, obliged to serve the people. It was a call in the form of a literary work to overthrow the king and feudal foundations.

In 1762, Russo's novel-treatise "Emile, or On Education" was published. He made the author famous all over the world. In it, Rousseau showed the way of educating a free man in a new, that is, bourgeois, society. The appearance of "Emil" aroused indignation among aristocrats and clergy. For the freedom of thought expressed in it, although Rousseau was not an atheist, the book was burned in one of the squares of Paris, and its author was forced to flee abroad. Only shortly before his death, sick and broken physically and mentally, he was able to return to his homeland. Rousseau died in 1778.

Rousseau's works deeply excited the minds of the advanced pre-revolutionary bourgeois society, their influence extended far beyond the borders of France.

Socio-political and philosophical views of Rousseau.

Power and wealth created inequality, Rousseau argued, and man therefore lost his freedom. “Man was born free, yet he is everywhere in chains,” he wrote. He believed that the power should belong to the people themselves, he demanded that everyone should work. He called for only small property to be allowed, and the property of the noble feudal lords to be destroyed. This teaching of Rousseau in his time was revolutionary. It expressed the interests of small owners (artisans, peasants) and led to the establishment of the bourgeois system. Rousseau's ideal is petty-bourgeois labor property and a social structure based on this property and on the labor of everyone.

Considering the issue of the perception of the world around us, Rousseau reasoned like a sensualist: there is nothing in our consciousness that would not be received through sensations, through the senses. But he could not draw materialistic conclusions from this position. He denied the official religion and was a supporter of the "religion of feeling", believing that each person is free to believe in his own way. According to him, "everything is good that comes out of the hands of the creator of the universe, everything degenerates in the hands of man."

Man, according to Rousseau, is spoiled by modern society. Hence the conclusion: a child should be raised outside a spoiled society, away from civilization, in the "bosom of nature."

The existence of people must be supported by personal labor. There can be no normal human life without labor. But in an unjust, spoiled world, many appropriate the results of someone else's labor. Truly free is a person who lives by his labor. According to Rousseau, the task is to educate such a person who would not depend on anyone, would live the fruits of his labors, value his freedom and know how to defend it. The person who values ​​his freedom will, of course, learn to respect the freedom of others, based on work.

Rousseau said that it is not necessary to educate the children of workers, they are already brought up by life itself. It is necessary to re-educate the feudal lords, aristocrats, properly educate their children, and the world will become different. Therefore, the hero of his work "Emil, or On Education", he makes Emil, who comes from a noble family. As a result of the upbringing he received, he must become a free-thinker and live by his own labor.

Natural and free upbringing.

Children should be brought up, according to Rousseau, naturally, in accordance with nature. This means that in upbringing, one must follow the nature of the child, take into account his age characteristics. “Nature wants children to be children before they become adults,” Rousseau wrote. He believed that education is received from three sources: from nature, from the people around him and from things. Education by nature, in his opinion, is carried out through the "internal" development of human abilities, the development of the sense organs; upbringing by people is teaching a person to use the development of these abilities and organs; and finally, upbringing from things is a person's own experience, acquired by him from the things that he encounters and which affect him. The correct upbringing will be when all three factors (upbringing by nature, people, things or external circumstances) act in concert, in one direction.

Rousseau put free education in direct connection with natural education. The first of the natural human rights, he said, is freedom. Relying on this position, he opposed the scholastic school with its cramming, harsh discipline, corporal punishment and suppression of the child's personality. He demanded to respect the personality of the child, to take into account his interests and requests. This is the positive meaning of his call for free education.

Rousseau attached great importance to the guiding role of the educator, but understood this role in his own way, in his own way. The educator, he said, only leads his pupil to the solution of the issue, guides his interests in such a way that the child himself does not notice it, has mainly an indirect effect. He organizes the entire environment, all the influences surrounding the child so that they suggest certain solutions. He denied coercion as a method of education.