Conference Agenda

In 1988 UNESCO ranked Anton Semenovich Makarenko (1888 – 1939) as one of four educators who most significantly determined the world's pedagogical thinking in the 20th century. This is not only because his concept of Collective Education was the official educational theory of socialist countries, but also because numerous educators in non-socialist countries were inspired by his ideas. Attitudes towards Makarenko’s works in each context, however, range from a derogatory rejection of his ideas to a glorified appreciation of his pedagogical work. The rise and fall of scientific and pedagogical interest in Makarenko were not only influenced by the ideological battles of the Cold War, but also other pedagogical conflicts such as between theory and practice, traditions and innovations, and romantic idealism and pragmatism. After the collapse of the U.S.S.R., the number of research papers on Makarenko generally decreased while in many “Western” countries Makarenko's ideas, especially the socialist education methods, seem to have lost their relevance and been relegated to the past. Nonetheless, research on Makarenko continued, albeit with different research focuses. It was carried on not only by researchers in the post-Soviet states such as Frolov (2006), Dichek (2018), Oksa and Karpenchuk (2008), but also in countries like Germany and Japan (e.g. Mannschatz 2002; Schubert 2019; Dreier-Horning 2022).

While the above-mentioned research mainly focuses on discussions in the former U.S.S.R., our research project highlights the comparative aspects. Although Makarenko's concepts circulated transnationally and were received, (re)interpreted and implemented in different contexts, there are only a few works (e.g. Frolov 2006) that examine the transnational aspect of Makarenko's ideas across the Iron Curtain.

Thus, in this project, we aim to investiage how Makarenko was remembered (or forgotten) in three countries – namely, in Ukraine, where Makarenko was born and worked; in East Germany (and Germany after the reunification), where Makaranko’s pedagogy was once regarded as the official educational principle; and in Japan, which is one of the capitalist countries strongly influenced by Makarenko's ideas (Fujii 1988). Our research focuses on the time frame from the late 20th Century to the beginning of the 21st Century, especially around 1988 since in this year, shortly before the collapse of the U.S.S.R, the 100^th Anniversary of Makarenko was celebrated internationally. In our comparison and analysis we utilize secondary literature, pedagogical journals, and reports on educational conferences in three countries.

The starting point of this research project is a manuscript of the book, Basics of Modern Makarenko Studies (ОсновиСучасного Макаренкознавства), written by the second author of this proposal and his colleagues. The main audience of the book are Ukrainian students in teacher-training. The manuscript was almost ready for publication; however, due to the Russian invasion, it has not yet been possible to publish the book. Furthermore, in this new age of uncertainty the authors are now forced to rethink the question of whether and how Makarenko's pedagogy, which itself emerged in an age of uncertainty in the middle of post-WW1 Ukraine, should or can be remembered. We also seek to answer the question of whether his pedagogy has any significance for education in the future, not only in Ukraine, but also in other parts of the world.

This research is still in its early stages and we would like to present our first outcome and discuss it with other participants to further develop our research.

With this contribution, we aim to investigate the thought of Lamberto Borghi to show how, in his works, he emphasises a strong conviction that through education, it is possible to cultivate hope in building a future of peace.

Antonio Borghi (1907-2000) was one of Italy's most influential 20th-century pedagogists. He graduated in philosophy, specialised in German literature and taught for several years in various Italian high schools. In 1938, following the promulgation of the fascist racial laws, he was dismissed and left the country for the United States. Attending universities and intellectual circles, he came into close contact with leading figures on the international cultural scene, including Salvemini, Cassirer and Dewey. Returning to Italy as a full professor of Pedagogy at the University of Florence, he became one of the main disseminators of Dewey's thought. In his work, he establish a 'secular' paradigm of pedagogical investigation with a strong civil and political commitment.

With this study, we aim to investigate, in particular, the themes of peace, non-violence and anti-authoritarianism. These aspects, which we will highlight, are present in many of his most prominent works. This contribution will emphasise how the author tried to keep these values alive, even in his everyday life.

Through unpublished correspondence kept, in part, at the INDIRE (National Institute for Documentation, Innovation and Educational Research) archive in Florence, we will try to introduce the reader to a more private side of the author, showing how his commitment to these values led him to maintain contacts and relations not only with the academic world but also with non-violent activist groups. We will particularly emphasise the author's relationship with anarchist and non-violent groups operating in Italy at that time, contributing to the commitment and dissemination of those values that he supported from a theoretical point of view.

Since the establishment of the first state-supported art academies in the second half of the sixteenth century, the elaborate and schematic pedagogical principles set forth by the founding Mannerist artists were subsequently assimilated by the French Academy and instilled across Europe as a dominant model of art education. This traditional academic, pedagogical doctrine “has determined the character and the destiny of academies of art down to the twentieth century” (Pevsner, 1973, p. 66). In the nineteenth century, reinforced by the Romantic narratives of genius, the paramount view on artistic creation was still a reflection of the Kantian position that “beautiful Art is only possible as a product of Genius” (1790/2000, para. 46). The author of a work of art, “does not himself know how he has come by his Ideas;” thus the artist has no power “to communicate it to others in precepts that will enable them to produce similar products” (1790/2000, para. 46). On the one hand, art, as a property of genius, cannot be taught. On the other, the founding principle legitimising the existence of art academies lies precisely in the belief that artistic genius must be educated.

Progressive early twentieth-century art and design schools resolved the aporia of nineteenth-century traditional art academies. Design education proposed a radical solution – a unity between art and technology, producing thus not only the possibility of teaching art but a new paradigm of education – in which everyone can learn to be creative. The argument of this presentation is that modernist and vanguard art trends, together with the foundation of design schools such as Bauhaus and Vkhutemas, evidence the departure from the traditional academic model of art education and introduce a fundamentally different approach to teaching creative skills as something that anyone can acquire.

To examine this premise, I will discuss the pedagogies of some of the most progressive art schools of the early twentieth century – Svomas (1918-1920) and Vkhutemas-Vkhutein (1920-1930). These institutions were a result of the first reform of art education in Soviet Russia, carried out after the October Revolution. The traditional system of art academies was abolished – all artistic schools in the country (Academies of Fine and Applied Arts) were dissolved and converted into Free State Art Workshops (Svomas) (Khan-Magomedov, 1995). This new organisation was not only a complete break from the previous conservative model – for the first time, art education in Russia became organised on principles of freedom (Adaskina, 1992). Students had a right to elect a master of the workshop of their liking and even to enrol to a workshop without any supervisor. Moreover, admission to Svomas required no exams, no previous diplomas of completing other courses or secondary education and was free of charge.

In 1920, a second reform was carried out – merging the First and Second Svomas in Moscow and resulting in the creation of Vkhutemas (Higher Artistic-Technical Workshops). The establishment of Vkhutemas coincided with the time when vanguard artistic movements in Russia gained momentum - the most progressive leftist artists were given the task of creating their studios within Vkhutemas as well as defining the foundational course (so-called propaedeutics) obligatory for all students. The new system was conceived to open possibilities of artistic education to hitherto marginalised groups – youths from rural and working-class family backgrounds. Vkhutemas was an institution of mass education – in 1922, there were 2,222 students enrolled (in contrast to 119 students at the Bauhaus) (Bokov, 2020). The most urgent pedagogical difficulty to overcome was how to train students en masse, many without any previous contact or training in art.