Melentyeva Yu.P.

Reply to opponent

Kindly provided by Yu.N. Stolyarov of the text of his article devoted to criticism of the “Code of Ethics of the Russian Librarian,” before its publication, allows me, as one of the main developers of this document, to quickly respond to the comments and considerations made.

Having overcome the temptation to object to Yu.N.’s criticism. Stolyarov in his own style - the style of “ frantic Vissarion”, using such expressions as “newly-minted theorists”, “uncritical imposition of Western ideological stereotypes”, “the code is a funny toy for library bureaucrats”, etc., leaving out the blazing pathos of the article, angry appeals to the reader and other traditional methods of rhetoric from the century before last, I would like to answer to the point.

All claims of Yu.N. Stolyarov’s “Code...” essentially boils down to the following.

Firstly, he doubts that such a “peaceful profession” as library science needs an ethical code, believing that such a code is needed only by specialists “working in extreme conditions.”

Secondly, he believes that the Russian (Russian) librarian, due to his mentality, unlike his Western colleagues, does not need an ethical code, and the development of the “Code of the Russian Librarian” is just a tribute to fashion - a simple imitation of Western models undertaken by the developers of the “Code... “only in order to “earn the praise of someone, somewhere abroad” (as they wrote before - “foreign masters”? - Yu.M.).

Thirdly, Yu.N. Stolyarov does not accept the main provisions of the “Code of Ethics of the Russian Librarian” because he is categorically against the “invented principle of freedom of information” that the “Code...” affirms.

Well, I'll try to answer.

1. Professional ethics as a scientific field emerged as a result of understanding the relationship of professionals in any field of activity with society as a whole. The result of this understanding is the code of professional ethics - in essence, there is an agreement between society and the professional community. Such an agreement allows one to protect the values ​​of the profession from the influence of not always fair public opinion, on the one hand, and on the other hand, it allows one to protect society from the so-called professional criticism, i.e. professionally limited thinking.

The development of problems of professional ethics is an indicator of a high level of professional consciousness, an indicator of the development of the profession, as well as an indicator of the free development of the profession in society.

IN Lately in connection with the change in the ideological and moral climate in our country in many professional fields there was a need to develop professional codes. So, during the 1990s. the “Code of Professional Ethics of the Russian Journalist” was developed and adopted (with the most important provision, which, of course, could not exist before: “while carrying out his professional activities, a journalist complies with the laws of his country, but rejects interference in his activities by the government or anyone else”) , “Code of Ethics for Communicators”, “Code of Honor of Russian Businessmen”, etc.

Obviously, these professions cannot be considered extreme. And even the profession of journalist cannot be recognized as such, since only a small part of the total number of professionals work in “hot spots”. However, all these professions have something in common. They are united, first of all, by the fact that in the professional consciousness of the servants of these professional spheres there is a differentiation of the values ​​of civil society and the state, an understanding that the qualified performance of professional duties for the benefit of society is often impossible to combine with the values ​​of the state. In the mentioned cases, priority is given to the values ​​of civil society, as is customary in democratic countries, to which Russia now considers itself, in contrast to countries with a totalitarian regime.

It is noteworthy that in such seemingly established professional fields, which have a centuries-old ethical code, such as medicine in last years Discussions on medical ethics have resumed (for example, on the permissibility of abortion, autopsy, etc.). This is happening not only due to changing socio-economic and technological conditions, but also due to changing attitudes towards individual freedom. In general, interest in ethical problems has grown noticeably recently; New sciences are rapidly developing - bioethics, ecoethics, etc.

The question of whether the library professional community in Russia needs a code of ethics in the new conditions of its development was the first one that had to be answered by specialists - members of one of the first public unions of library workers in the country - the Moscow Library Association (MBA).

In vain Yu.N. Stolyarov believes that “newly-minted theorists” were looking for the answer to this question. The search for the concept of a professional code of ethics for librarians was carried out by well-known people who had not only academic titles and degrees, but also real authority among their colleagues. This is T.E. Korobkina – first president of the IBA; M.Ya. Dvorkin, whose works on the problems of accessibility of information, the mission of libraries in society, etc. are studied by students of library universities; G.P. Diyanskaya, whose work on library services for blind users is well known; S.A. Ezova, who has been dealing with issues of relationships between librarians and users for more than two decades; O.L. Kabachek is one of the first Russian certified library psychologists; G.A. Altukhova, whose articles first attracted the attention of the general public to the problem of ethics in library services; L.M. Stepachev is a leading bibliographer at VGBIL, who analyzed the process of forming a professional code of ethics for librarians in the USA and other countries.

I dare to hope that the author of these lines, who has been working in the industry for more than 30 years, did not look like an “outsider” as the head of this research group. Such well-known people in the library world as Yu.A. took an active part in the discussion of the “Code...”. Grikhanov, E.R. Sukiasyan and many others.

The complexity of the problem required the involvement of experts: Yu.A. took an active part in developing the concept of the “Code...” Schrader - the most famous modern philosopher, author of numerous books on ethics, and E.A. Yablokova is a major specialist in the problems of professional psychology and professional ethics.

As a result of studying the problem, it was concluded that the library profession, freed from ideological oppression, which hampered the normal development of professional consciousness, must determine its true professional values ​​and ethical standards of the librarian’s relationship with the state, society, user (reader), as well as colleagues.

However, all this is known and published long ago. From 1993, when the idea of ​​creating the “Code…” appeared, and before its adoption by the session of the Russian Library Association (1999), dozens of discussions, seminars, round tables, etc. were held. Their materials were widely published in the professional press, in the RBA Bulletin, as well as on the RBA website.

The author of these lines has at home more than a dozen letters “from the field,” from a variety of libraries, from a variety of people with proposals for the “Code...”. Not a single critic, even the most negatively disposed towards the proposed version of the document, doubted its fundamental necessity for the further development of the profession.

There is especially great interest and need for the “Code...” in the periphery, where the librarian is forced to especially staunchly defend his professional values ​​and professional dignity (however, just like a journalist, entrepreneur, etc.) from the encroachments of the authorities on the use of library resources in their purposes.

The real need for a “Code...” is also confirmed by the extensive lists of those who signed up for its discussion at the RBA round table in St. Petersburg (1998), Tver (2000), Saratov (2001), as well as those that even before the release of the “Code...” in the form of a poster (circulation 3 thousand) in 2001, some local library societies, for example Novosibirsk, published the “Code...” on their own and distributed it in their regions. So in vain Yu.N. Stolyarov offends the Russian librarian, thinking that he, like Krylov’s cat Vaska, “listens and eats,” indifferent to everything in the world. On the contrary, in contrast to the “Law on Librarianship,” which is of an official nature, the “Code...” is perceived by librarians very vividly, with obvious personal interest, and the reproach of Yu.N. Stolyarov is that the “Code...” is not in demand by professional society - it is not fair.

2. For some reason appealing to K. Marx (I think not the greatest authority on this issue), Yu.N. Stolyarov claims that the mentality of the Russian people (in his opinion, “is more scientific, or better yet, fair, than the Western one.” - ?? - Yu.M.) does not need laws at all, including the “Code...”. " After all, Sobolshchikov and Stasov, Fedorov and Rubakin managed without a code of ethics“- he exclaims. Well, what can I say? You never know what Russian people had to do without!

If we speak seriously, then it is incorrect to pose the question this way. Firstly, in the mentioned Yu.N. Stolyarov’s time, the level of development of the profession and professional self-awareness was completely different; secondly, there was no such correlation of forces between the state and civil society as there is today, and therefore, there was no such need to defend professional values. Finally, both Rubakin and Fedorov undoubtedly adhered to certain ethical standards, which existed, albeit in an implicit form, in various “Rules”, “Regulations”, etc.

It is also worth noting that although the concept Russian mentality is used quite actively (by the way, there is no consensus in science about this phenomenon), the concept Russian mentality, which is used as a synonym by Yu.N. Joiners don't exist. And finally, even if we agree with Yu.N. Stolyarov is that Russian mentality interferes with the adoption of the “Code...”, then not only representatives of Russian nationality work in Russian libraries.

It is quite obvious that today, despite the peculiarities of its development, Russia is actively participating in the world community and keenly perceives international standards in various areas of life (such as human rights, protection environment, education, health, crime and terrorism). In reality, these procedures take place at the level of bringing professionals closer together, including bringing their professional consciousness closer together. This determines a certain similarity (which seems unacceptable to my opponent) of professional codes of ethics adopted in different countries. This fully applies to the “Code of Ethics of the Russian Librarian”, the development of which, naturally, was preceded by an in-depth study of similar documents in force in other countries (USA, England, France, Slovakia, etc.).

No profession today can develop in a space limited by national (state) frameworks. Although in our history there were attempts to create “Soviet biology”, “red librarian”, etc., it is known what caused this and what it led to.

And only by the deformation of professional consciousness under the influence of political factors that forced the librarian to define his role as ideological, “protective”, regardless of the essential functions of the library, can one explain what exists so far “ our librarian, which does not accept the role of a passive executor of any whims of the reader", as Yu.N. writes. Stolyarov.

Disrespect for the individual, the desire to bring it under a “common denominator”, the desire to limit and regulate its freedom, including intellectual, informational, the perception of a person’s personal, everyday needs as “whims”, widespread in society as a whole, was, of course, characteristic and for a number of people who work in the library and see the purpose of their work as “reader formation.” Fortunately, today there are few such specialists left, especially among practical workers who clearly understand that the modern reader values ​​\u200b\u200bthe library, first of all, the breadth and accessibility of information. In this regard, we have to sadly note that my opponent has never moved away from the position of defending the ideological function of the library, which is very far from the needs of modern library reality.

It seems that Yu.N. Stolyarov is being disingenuous (he can’t not understand this) when, giving the dictionary definition of ideology as “a system of political, legal, religious and moral views...”, he speaks of his fearlessness in the face of this “bogeyman” that frightens the librarian of the “democratic formation.” The thing is, Yu.N. Stolyarov, of course, knows that our libraries for a long time were forced to support only one, “the only correct ideology.” This is exactly what I would not like to return to. It is not true that “the library has nowhere to hide from ideology,” as Yu.N. writes. Stolyarov. This book always carries some specific ideology as a system of views, but free library– a collection of books – can and should enable the reader to know them All! However, the defense of the ideological function of the library by Yu.N. Stolyarov is quite logical, given that he is categorically against the “invented principle of freedom of information.”

3. I would not like to simplify the problem of freedom of access to information. Of course, the developers of the “Code...” understood no worse than Yu.N. Stolyarov that freedom of access to information is not only a good thing, but that it also implies access to “negative”, “bad”, “undesirable” information. Hundreds of publications are devoted to this contradiction and attempts to resolve it, including in a library setting. And here, it seems to me, it remains to say, to paraphrase the well-known expression - freedom of information is a terrible thing, but nothing better has been invented yet.

Put between with the powerful element of information that has overwhelmed the entire society today, and its consumer, the library, as a barrier, as a filter, no matter how good it was done, it is not only technically impossible, but also unprofessional. This would mean turning the user away from the library, forcing him to bypass it. (This, by the way, was understood long ago by librarians in Western countries, who were faced with various aspects of the problem of freedom of information much earlier than their Russian colleagues.) For a library, this would be suicidal. The library as a social institution would, in fact, be excluded from the information process. In any case, it is unlawful to put a problem that cannot be solved at the global level on the library’s shoulders.

It seems that it is more reasonable not to deny and prohibit freedom of information in a library environment, but to promote the development of the user’s information culture, which includes not only technological, but also humanitarian, in particular ethical aspects. This is exactly how many librarians see their task and accept the “Code...” with satisfaction.

It is characteristic, however, that Yu.N. Stolyarov, who does not accept the “Code of Ethics...”, sees the need to create Ethics Council, where ethical conflicts would be sorted out.

I will say right away that there was such a proposal, but the developers of the Code... considered it unacceptable, although some countries, for example the UK, have a similar council as part of the national library association.

Yu.A. Schrader wrote in his letter to me about this: “... the sad experience of our country, the creation of “troikas”, “personal affairs”, etc., the general low moral level of society makes us very afraid that such a body could cause more harm, than good. The meaning of the “Code...” is not to condemn anyone in particular, but to gradually influence the general ethical situation in the profession, We must know, What we violate. The guarantee of ethical standards lies only in our desire to comply with them.” Wonderfully said!

In no case do you want to be understood in the sense that the text of the “Code...” is impeccable and does not need correction. In all discussions, in the articles of the author of these lines about the “Code...” it is emphasized that this open a document that needs to be revised, adjusted, clarified, etc., as has been done, for example, in the USA for more than a hundred years.

Comments are already being collected and analyzed, which will help improve this document over time. For example, it is obvious that it is worth introducing into the “Code...” a provision stating that the librarian is responsible for the collection entrusted to him(and then, perhaps, Yu.N. Stolyarov will not have to talk about the need to include in the “Code...” the concept professional integrity as a specific quality inherent only to a librarian, or demand that a provision be introduced that a bibliophile should not be hired to work in the library).

Many professionals took part in the discussion of the “Code...”. Responses are sent to the author of these lines, to the editorial offices of professional journals, etc. Yu.N.’s active participation in this process. Stolyarov, who has done a lot for libraries in the past, and is now more passionate about documentary and literary problems (and no one, it seems, called him a “newly-minted Pushkinist”), is certainly positive. I just wish that this criticism did not come from the perspective of the day before yesterday.

Professional values ​​of a librarian as the basis of his professional ethics. Seminar. May 14–16, 1996. Abstract. report M., RAGS, 1996.

Articles

Melentyeva Yu.P.
Object of modern library science

[Library science. 2004. No. 6. P.26-31 ]

Defining the object of library science, as is known, is one of the most important and still controversial problems of our science.
The rise of knowledge from the empirical level to the theoretical made it possible already at the beginning of the 20th century, in the pre-October period, to offer basic ideas about the essence of library science as an independent science and about the object of library science. This was done by S.D. Maslovsky, K.I. Rubinsky, V.A. Stein, L.B. Khavkina et al. 1
The history of the issue shows that, in fact, for almost a century there has been a confrontation between two positions: the understanding of library science as the science of the library (interpreted more or less broadly) and the concept of library science as the science of library activities (library activities).
The idea of ​​a library as an object of industrial science was put forward by L.B. Khavkina 2. She viewed the library “as a specific organism, which is composed of three elements: the book, the librarian and the reader.” This approach for the first time gave an understanding of the systematic nature of the object of library science. Later, the views of L.B. Khavkina were developed by other researchers, for example A.V. Klenov, who considered it necessary to actively study the cause-and-effect relationships between the structural elements (book, librarian, reader) of the object of library science.
During the same period, a very promising, in our opinion, modern-sounding concept of library science was put forward “as a science, the purpose of which is to study librarianship in the conditions of the historical development of society in connection with economic, social and cultural processes” (K.I. Rubinsky). He saw in the library an organism obeying the general laws of life.
After the revolution in Russia, as is known, a fierce ideological struggle began, which could not but affect the determination of the status of many sciences of a social and humanitarian nature, including library science.
During the 1930-1950s. A discussion took place, then flaring up and then fading, during which “Soviet” library science was contrasted with “bourgeois” and was defined as a class, ideological science.
In fact, during this period the possibility and necessity of studying the essence of library activity at the theoretical level was rejected, “since there is a system of views of the classics of Marxism on the book and the library.”
And although in the 1960s. the situation softened, it was against this background that the well-known discussion of 1976-1979 took place, which opened with an article by A.Ya. Chernyak. Based on the experience of predecessors, A.Ya. Chernyak defined the object of library science as the “book library reader” system, emphasizing its open nature and demonstrating a broad humanistic and cultural approach to understanding the essence of library science.
The main opponent of A.Ya. Chernyaku became Yu.N. Stolyarov, who completed the construction of L.B. Khavkina as the fourth structural element and defined the library as an object of library science as a four-element structure: “book librarian reader material and technical base.”
The main provisions of this concept are widely known.
The inclusion of the fourth element “material and technical base” in the concept was apparently determined by the fact that during the years when the concept was created (19701980), the technical capabilities of libraries underwent significant changes: technical progress also came to libraries, and this phenomenon should was to be meaningful.
It should be said that the library community of that time generally recognized the concept of Yu.N. Stolyarov, since the term “library” as a generalizing one, as a fundamental concept, was richer in content compared to other terms that were also proposed by the discussion participants to designate the object of library science: “library science” (K.I. Abramov, N.S. Kartashov, G.K. Kuzmin); " library system"(G.A. Zhidkov). These concepts can only be considered as partial in relation to the term “library”.
Nor did it receive significant support, going back to the views of K.I. Rubinsky's idea of ​​M.A. Konovalova and A.I. Stop about “library activity” as an object of library science.
However, even at that time it was obvious that the concept of Yu.N. Stolyarova is not flawless.
The weak point of this concept, in the opinion of its critics, was that, firstly, in this concept the object and the subject of research merge into one: according to the author of the concept, the subject of science is nothing more than an abstract reproduction of its object 3, which is very controversial and, according to other researchers, significantly narrows the substantive field of our science 4 .
Secondly, the concept lacks the “control” element. “Its absence means that the library cannot be classified as a managed object. Meanwhile, both the library and librarianship are managed objects, otherwise they could not function” 5.
Thirdly, the “material and technical base”, named as the fourth structural element, is not specific to the library, since it is obvious that any institution has it, be it a school, a store, a bathhouse, etc. 6
In addition, we note the inaccuracy of the definition of “material and technical base”: after all, strictly speaking, the library’s collection can also be attributed to the material and technical base of the library.
Fourthly, over time it became obvious that the author’s further clarification of this “quadriga”: instead of “book librarian reader material and technical base” “document staff user material and technical base” made the entire definition of the object not specific to library science as a whole, since the document, user, MTB and staff are characteristic of both the archive and the bookstore, museum, etc. The author, however, did not see his own mistake in this substitution, but concluded that the library is part of the documentation system, and therefore, library science is part of “document science” 7.
Today it is increasingly clear that there are many more differences than similarities between a library, an archive, a museum and a bookstore. Often united in the historical past, the library and museum are now increasingly diverging.
We can add the following fifth argument against the definition of the object of library science given by Yu.N. Stolyarov, namely: the definition of a library as an object of library science as a four-element structure takes beyond the scope of library science such a type of library as personal libraries, which are a very noticeable part of the culture of any country 8. Meanwhile, just as personal art collections cannot be excluded from the context of museology, personal libraries cannot be taken outside the scope of library science 9. Moreover, all librarianship began mainly with personal libraries, and the fate of personal libraries can be very bizarre and often have a very significant impact on the development of the entire librarianship: the most famous example of this is the library of Count N.P. Rumyantsev, which became the basis of the Russian State Library.
The same reproach can be applied to a new type of library - electronic. They also do not “fit” into the design proposed by Yu.N. Stolyarov.
Thus, recently it has become increasingly clear that the definition of the object of library science needs to be rethought.
It is obvious that modern library science should no longer be satisfied with a concept that, in fact, denies library science independence, considering it as part of an unknown documentology 10, denies even the independence of the “librarian” profession 11, and leaves out the most important areas of librarianship, such as , such as library management and library networks, the formation of a professional press and professional consciousness, social, partnership and international cooperation of libraries and much more. The entire living essence of a modern, actively developing library remains outside the scope of this concept.
This concept does not stand up to the tests of changes that have occurred in connection with informatization; the emerging electronic environment in all its complexity does not “squeeze” into the proposed rigid scheme.
The documentation paradigm of library science, the position of which the author of the existing concept insists on, is in sharp contradiction with internationally accepted ideas about the library as an information institution.
Therefore, by the way, the real strengthening of the information concept of the library 12, including through the active use of the term “information”, seems to the author dangerous for the development of library science 13, although it is quite obvious that the new terminology does not arise by chance, it has its own development logic and reflects reality and is poorly regulated from the outside.
Reproaching modern researchers for being too complacent to “informatics,” the author of the concept (and this is very significant!) considers it positive that in the 1960s, library scientists “resisted” in the discussion with the nascent computer science and did not move towards a convergence of positions 14 . Meanwhile, there is another understanding of that now distant situation “it is enough to recall the damage that the library system of the USSR suffered as a result of the subjective 15 confrontation between librarians and information scientists, which lasted from the 1960s. until about the 1990s, its echoes are still felt today” 16.
It is strange that, speaking about the danger of the dominance of the term “information” for the development of library science, Yu.N. Stolyarov does not see a danger for our science in the dissemination of the terms “documentary”, “documentary”, “documentological”, as well as arguments that library science is only a part of documentology, that a librarian is not a profession, but a specialty profession "documenter".
Thus, it is obvious that it is not library science that is “in danger,” but the concept of library science proposed by Yu.N. Stolyarov, which objectively increasingly hampers the development of science.
There is nothing surprising in the fact that some theories die out, giving way to others: this is exactly how scientific knowledge moves.
Today, when a library is not only “a book, a reader, a librarian and a material and technical base,” but also information technologies, management technologies, social connections of the library, professional communications and much more, when the library is a complex, self-organizing, a non-linearly developing organism, a relatively independent part of which is also part of a more complex whole, this is already understood by many: “In order for library science to be considered a completely “equal” science, it is necessary to bring it to the level of modern scientific requirements, to rethink its components, scientific tools in a new, changed situations. It is necessary to explore and show how the object of library science, its subject, has changed, how the laws of this science, methods, and methodology itself have changed" 17 .
It should be noted that such studies are already appearing. Increasingly, works are emerging in which the library is viewed as a complex, living organism 18 changing the status and meaning of its existence 19 before our eyes. Of significant interest are the concepts of V.P. Leonova, M.S. Slobodyanika, A.M. Stakhevich, A.S. Chachko et al. 20
So, V.P. Leonov proposed to consider not the library, not librarianship, but the library process as an object of library science; 21 the understanding of other St. Petersburg scientists who propose returning to understanding library activity as an object of library science is close to this. These approaches seem to be very productive for the development of the theory of library science, although it is rightly noted that neither the library process nor library activities can be the object of library science, since they take place within the framework of another object - the library 22.
Very interesting observation by V.P. Leonov about the “double life” of the library, about its deep connection with the culture and history of the country and the world 23, about the library as a “symphony”, about Russian library culture.
With all their differences, all these concepts emphasize the need and necessity for the definition of the object of library science to reflect the integrity and dynamics of objective reality.
The problem of studying the library as a whole seems extremely important. By breaking the problem into parts, structural elements, fragments, it is possible to achieve the point that complex tasks and objects become, as it were, more knowable, but we have to pay for this by losing our sense of connection in relation to the whole, understanding of the behavior of complex systems over time and space.
It is interesting that the problem of studying the “whole” is also acute in other sciences close to library science, for example in book science: even M.N. Kufaev spoke about the need to study “the whole book” 24. How today, taking into account the rapid development of library practice, can the object of library science be defined?
It is known that the object of knowledge is a set of qualitatively defined phenomena and processes of reality, significantly different in their internal nature, basic features and laws of functioning and development from other objects of this reality.
Thus, as an object of knowledge it is necessary to consider a certain objective reality, and as its subject - those aspects and features of the object that are covered by the study 25.
For example, object historical science the entire set of phenomena of social life throughout the history of society. The subject of cognition is a certain integral set of the most essential properties and characteristics of the object of cognition, which is being studied.
If the object of cognition is a reality independent of the cognizing subject, then the object of cognition is a part of this reality that is highlighted or attracts his attention.
Based on these general methodological provisions, it can be argued that the object of knowledge in library science is “the evolution of the 26 library in space and time,” and the subject of knowledge is a part (time period, direction of activity, process, etc.) of this reality.
As a result of evolution, a new qualitative state of the object arises. An object is considered, firstly, from the point of view of its internal structure: not as a mechanical set of individual elements, connections, dependencies, but as an organic combination of them, as an internally connected and functioning whole. Secondly, from the point of view of the process, i.e., the aggregates and historical connections and dependencies of its internal components that follow each other in time. Thirdly, from the point of view of identifying and recording qualitative changes in its structure as a whole. Fourthly, from the point of view of revealing the laws of its development, the laws of transition from one historical state of an object, characterized by a certain structure, to another historical state, characterized by a different structure 27.
Thus, the evolutionary approach preserves the substantive richness of the term “library” and, at the same time, due to the introduction of the concept of “subject of research”, it makes it possible to significantly expand the field of research and remove the static character from the current definition of the object of library science.
Defining the object of science as “the evolution of the library in time and space” allows us to introduce into the process of study and see in dynamics all new phenomena, technologies, trends, etc. that arise in reality, as well as temporal and spatial transformations of the library as a social institution, as parts of Russian and world culture, etc.
The library is understood as a complex multifunctional social institution, non-linearly developing both intensively (under the influence of the wider social environment, the results of related sciences and fields of knowledge) and extensively (under the influence of internal forces).
Today, a serious library scientist is interested in studying not so much the individual structural elements of a library and the connections between them, but rather understanding the library as a “whole,” a global metatext, as part of a common cultural space, and determining its place in society, in Russian and world culture, history, and the universe. knowledge, in philosophical concepts, and finally, in the life of an individual; define the concepts of “Russian library culture”, “domestic and world library thought”, “philosophy of library science”, etc. It is quite obvious that these concepts do not correlate well with the existing definition of the object of library science, which, by the way, has not only theoretical, but also purely practical consequences, for example, the topics of dissertations, as a rule, the most striking, do not fit into the concept of a library as a 4-element structures are easily rejected by some scientific councils under the pretext of inconsistency with the object of science.
The definition of the object of library science as “the evolution of the library in time and space” noticeably expands and deepens the field of the library researcher, opens up new horizons for the scientist and is more consistent with the modern level of scientific knowledge in general, as well as the needs of library practice, which is in dire need of understanding .

Notes and list of references: 1 See: Lukashov I.V. Russian library science at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. Formation of views on its structure / I.V. Lukashov // Russian library science: XX century: Directions of development, problems and results. Monograph experience. research / Comp. and preface Yu.P. Melentyeva. M.: Grant-Fair; Publishing house "Pashkov House", 2003. P. 925. 2 Khavkina L.B. Scientific development of library science issues / L.B. Khavkina // Proceedings of the first conference of scientific libraries. M., 1926. P. 2933. 3 Stolyarov Yu.N. Encyclopedic definition of library science / Yu.N. Stolyarov // Library Science. 1998. No. 1. P. 57. 4 Khropach A.N. Processes of differentiation in modern library science / A.N. Khropach // Soviet library science. 1983. No. 3. P. 34-41. 5 Skvortsov V.V. The concept of the library in modern Russian library science / V.V. Skvortsov // Russian library science: XX century: Directions of development, problems and results. Monograph experience. research / Comp. and preface Yu.P. Melentyeva. M.: Grant-Fair; Publishing house of the Russian State Library "Pashkov House", 2003. P. 160. 6 Ibid. 7 But even if we accept this position as true, it is obvious that the object (or subject) of library science still remains unformulated! 8 See, for example: Brovina AL. Personal libraries of the Arkhangelsk and Vologda provinces at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 20th centuries: Author's abstract. diss./ A.A. Brovina. M., 1987. 9 Although, of course, they can be considered from a bibliological perspective, as well as the collections (rare books, manuscripts, etc.) of public libraries. 10 Dobrovolsky V.V. Documentation or documentology: the end of the bibliological part of the discussion / V.V. Dobrovolsky // Librarianship 2004. Scientific materials. conf. M.: Publishing house MGUKI, 2004. P. 205-206. Dobrovolsky V.V. Book studies, Documentation, documentology: the failed Atlanta / V.V. Dobrovolsky // Ibid. P. 206-207. 11 Stolyarov Yu.N. repeatedly (for example, in his speech at the International Seminar for Teachers of Library Sciences at Moscow State University of Culture and Culture in 2002) he argued that “librarian” is not a profession, but only a specialty of the “documentator” profession. 12 The information paradigm of the library was developed by V.V. Skvortsov. He sees the library as “a holistic system that includes three main elements: 1) information in the form of publications, 2) the reader, 3) the librarian.” See: Skvortsov V.V. The concept of the library in modern Russian library science / V.V. Skvortsov // Russian library science: XX century. Directions of development, problems and results. Monograph experience. research / Comp. and preface Yu.P. Melentyeva. M.: Grand-Fair; Publishing house "Pashkov House", 2003. P. 161. 13 Stolyarov Yu.N. Library science is in danger / Yu.N. Stolyarov // Librarianship 2003: Proceedings of the conference. M.: Publishing house MGUKI, 2003. P. 27 29. Repeated in the publication “Bulletin of MGUKI” (2004. No. 1) 14 Ibid. P. 27. 15 Emphasized by author. Yu.M. 16 Skvortsov V.V. The concept of the library in modern Russian library science / V.V. Skvortsov // Russian library science: XX century. Directions of development, problems and results. Monograph experience. research / Comp. and preface Yu.P. Melentyeva. M.: Grand-Fair; Publishing house of the Russian State Library "Pashkov House", 2003. P. 161. 17 Nikonorova E.V. Vector of development of modern library science / E.V. Nikonorova // Library science. 2003. No. 6. P. 22-28. 18 Afanasyev M.D. A library is a living organism and nothing in it disappears without a trace / M. D. Afanasyev // Library Science. 1999. No. 3. P. 98-107. 19 Gorchitskaya EL. Hani's status is changing. In the direction? /E.A. Gorchitskaya // Library. 2004. No. 2. P. 56-58. 20 See, for example: Leonov V.P. Library space. St. Petersburg, 2003; Stakhevich A.M. The university library as a living system... / A.M. Stakhevich // Libraries and associations in a changing world: new technologies and new forms of cooperation. Tr. conf. T. 2. M.: Publishing house GPNTB of Russia, 2003. P. 756-758.; Slobodyanik M.S. System-functional model of the library / M.S. Slobodyanik // Ibid. P. 759. Chachko A.S. Library science in the human dimension. Monograph / A.S. Chachko. Kyiv, 2002. 21 On the new paradigm of library science // Bibliotekovedenie. 1994. No. 4. P. 31-46. 22 Vaneev A.N. About the object of library science and methodological work/ A.N. Vaneev // Scientific and technical libraries. 1992. No. 1. P. 28-30. 23 Leonov V.P. On the originality of Russian library culture / V.P. Leonov // Materials of the international bibliology conference. M., 2004. 24 Kufaev M.N. History of Russian books in the 19th century / M.N. Kufaev. M.: Publishing house of the Russian State Library "Pashkov House", 2003. P. 31. 25 Kovalchenko I.D. Methods of historical research / I.D. Kovalchenko. M.: Nauka, 2003. P. 53-56. 26 The term “evolution” (from the Latin evolutio deployment) in in a broad sense denotes an idea of ​​changes in society and nature, their direction, order, patterns; in a narrower sense, it defines the state of a system, which is considered as the result of more or less long-term changes in its previous state. 27 See more: Development as a regulatory principle. Rostov-n/Don: Publishing house Rost, university, 1991.

UDC 378(075.8):02 BBK 78.38

Approved by the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation

as a textbook for students of higher educational institutions studying in their specialty

071201 - Library and information

activity

Reviewers:

Shaposhnikov A. E., Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor of Moscow State University of Culture and Culture; Afanasyev M. D., candidate

pedagogical sciences, director of GPIB

Melentyeva Yu. P.

Library services: textbook / Yu. P. Melentyeva. - M.: “FAIR Publishing House”, 2006. -

256 pp. - (Special publishing project for libraries).

ISBN 5-8183-1208-9

The textbook discusses historical, theoretical, methodological, technological and organizational

aspects of library services; its current state is revealed. First attempt made

present library services not only in the context Russian reality, but also how

a global professional process taking place in the context of the emergence of a “one world library”.

The main objective of this textbook is to form a new generation of broad professional

views, modern professional thinking along with knowledge and respect for achievements

predecessors.

378(075.8):02 BBK 78.38

ISBN 5-8183-1208-9

Melentyeva Yu. P., 2006 Series, design. "FAIR Publishing House", 2006

Preface

one of the most important disciplines studied in the process of obtaining a higher library degree

information education.

It examines historical, theoretical, methodological, technological and

organizational aspects of library service as an individual reader

(user), and various reader groups and contingents.

The textbook reveals the state of library services, taking into account the transformations

events that have occurred in our country and related professional changes: new

conditions for the functioning of libraries, a new attitude towards the individual and his

information needs and interests, recognition of free access to information

the basic value of a democratic society, etc. Students’ attention is also

for the first time, information related to the existence of a personal, private library as

a necessary component of the process of forming the user’s reading culture

public accessible library.

Preface

However, the fundamental novelty and difference of this textbook from all previous ones

this course is that for the first time an attempt has been made to present library

service not only in the context of Russian reality, but also as a global

professional process carried out in the context of the formation of a “united world

libraries."

Associated with this is a much more detailed study than has been done before.

international legislative acts defining the fundamental provisions

organization of library services in modern world, as well as wide

This approach seems especially important in connection with the growing trend

globalization in librarianship, as well as in other areas; with the formation

international, primarily pan-European, standards that determine the activities of

libraries in general and library services to users in particular

Pursuit

Russia’s entry into the “common European home” means recognition of standards and understanding

the need for their implementation in practice.

The main objective of this textbook is to develop a new generation of students

broad professional views, modern professional thinking along with

with knowledge and respect for the achievements of predecessors, understanding of one’s own

professional mission, deep respect for information needs

user, responsibility to him.

The textbook is based on all the positive knowledge accumulated by domestic and foreign

specialists since the formation training course"Library service"

independent academic discipline.

" See, for example, Public Libraries in the Digital Age. PULMAN Project Recommendations

European Commission / Ed. L. A. Kazachenkova. - M.: FAIR PRESS, 2004. - 416 p.

Preface

Problems of library services are considered mainly on the example of public

libraries, since today their role is significantly increasing in all countries of the world: public

the library became available to the general public without any restrictions; she's the one

plays a very special role in the life of the local community, reacting promptly and

opportunities to influence changes in the social, and therefore in the reading sphere; A

also has a multifunctional and flexible user service system,

being at the same time an information center, a club, a place of communication and

communications

This textbook corresponds to the adopted State Educational Standard for Higher Professional Education of the second generation in the specialty

“Library and information activities.”

Introduction

Evolution of the issue

"Library service"

The system of library education in Russia began to take shape in the 1920s and 30s. First

higher educational establishments were opened in St. Petersburg (Petrograd and Leningrad)

Kharkov, Moscow.

The Moscow Library Institute, designated as the head one, was created by Resolution

teachers, included a training course called “Working with Readers.” He

was supposed to give students an idea of ​​how to build a library

service in Soviet libraries. Later, already in 1940, a training program was developed

program “Methods of working with readers” (author Z.E. Luss)

In 1918, the Institute of Extracurricular Education with a book and library department was opened in Petrograd

extracurricular

Although the problem of creating stable textbooks in leading library disciplines is

work of the institute for 1940-1941.

However, the first textbook was published only in 1961.

Leningrad Library Institute

that peaceful life was interrupted by the Great Patriotic War, but also because it contributes to the development of science

in general and the humanities, which included library science, in particular,

ideology had the strongest influence. Ideological discussions of the 1930s, where it was given

“a decisive battle against bourgeois library concepts”, as well as a brutal

criticism to which the Moscow Library Institute was subjected in 1947 for

“weakening of the ideological struggle” and “admiration of the West”

etc., did

writing stable textbooks is not only very difficult, but also unsafe for

It is no coincidence that the first textbook was written only when the ideological

The climate in the country has softened somewhat.

However, of course, the content of the first textbook, but also the content of all subsequent

reissues

reflect brightly

"See ibid., p. 13.

Working with readers: Textbook for library institutes - M.: Sov. Russia, 1961 -239 p.

Later, its second edition was published: Working with Readers: A Textbook for the Bible. facts institute of culture. - 2nd ed.,

reworked and additional - M.: Book, 1970. - 352 p.

■* The oldest department... - P. 17.

Working with readers / Under. ed. V.F. Sakharov. - 3rd ed., revised and supplemented. - M.: Book. 1981. - 296 p.

Library service: theory and methodology / Ed. ed. AND I. Eisenberg. - M.: Publishing house MGUK, 1996 - 200

Introduction

processes occurring not only in library science, but also in society.

A comparative analysis of the content of different editions of the textbook allows us to trace

main trends in the development of issues related to library services

readers.

First of all, all three editions of the textbook “Working with the Reader” clearly reflect the nature of their

era. The objectives of working with readers and the principles of their service are determined based on

the prevailing theory of communist education during this period, set out in the works

K. Marx, F. Engels, V.I. Lenin and party documents, on the basis of which “any

a library, even the smallest one, is an ideological institution that helps

to the cause of building communism"

It is characteristic that in all three editions of the textbook “Working with Readers” the terms “working with

readers", "reading guidance", "propaganda of literature" are considered as

synonyms or very similar concepts that imply the active influence of the librarian on

reading activity of both children and adult readers, with the aim of imparting to their reading

"correct direction"

All three editions of the textbook strictly contrast the experience of Soviet and foreign

libraries, whose activities are viewed mainly in a critical manner.

At the same time, it is obvious that in the third edition of the textbook (1981), which remains, in general,

the same theoretical positions, yet the scope of the subject being studied is expanded. Yes, noticeably

the section devoted to the history of studying the Russian reader has been enlarged, more deeply and

Methods for studying readers are discussed in detail; significant attention is paid to theory

reading psychology; included a section on professional qualities

librarian; This is the first time that information services have been discussed.

All this reflects what happened between the first edition (1961) and the third (1981).

significant changes in society and in the professional environment, namely:

- "thaw" in political life countries. Returning the names of L.B. Khavkina, A.A.

Pokrovsky; ON THE. Rubakin and other library scientists, who until recently

called “bourgeois”; some softening in assessments of foreign librarianship

and library science; revitalization of international contacts;

- the development of sociology, which for a long time was in the position of “pseudo-science”. Formation

such a field as the sociology of reading. Conducted during this period by the State

library named after IN AND. Lenin (now the Russian State Library) and other sociological organizations

research (“Books and reading in the life of small towns”; “Books and reading in life

Soviet village”, etc.) gave an idea of ​​the modern reader, developed a methodology for his

studying for a new one

- the emergence of the first signs of the formation of the information society, awareness

the significance and value of information forced us to define for the first time the purpose of working with readers

“as the maximum satisfaction of reader demand”

As you know, in the late 1980s - early 1990s. there have been big changes in life

countries. These years included perestroika, the rejection of mono-ideology, and as a result -

revision of views on the role of the library in the life of the individual and society, goals and objectives

library services, etc. It was necessary to comprehend this new reality and

reflect it in educational materials for students.

curriculum for this discipline.

Introduction

But none of the presented programs

However, these developments were not in vain.

the title of the new textbook “Library Services: Theory and Methods”, which

published only in 1996, 15 years after the previous edition

a new understanding of the role of the reader as an active participant in the library process

service, freed from ideological pressure and given the right to

free choice of information.

The question of the status of the library in society was reconsidered, and during numerous

discussions that took place during this period on the pages of professional publications, from

defining the goals, objectives, and functions of the library, the ideological component was removed,

which is reflected in the “Law on Librarianship”

The most important task of the library

the challenge of ensuring freedom of access to information was recognized.

The principles of the relationship between the reader and the librarian were understood in a new way,

the dialogical nature of their communication is emphasized, etc.

The new textbook for the first time examined in detail the role of the library in the development of

personality. Library service

Shaposhnikov A.E. Library services for readers - Program... Project. - M.: IPCC, 1991.

Library services: theory and methodology: Textbook / Ed. AND I. Eisenberg. - M.: Publishing house

MGUK. 1996. - 200 p.

“Federal Law “On Librarianship” // Inf. Bulletin of the Russian

library association. - St. Petersburg, 1995. - No. 2. - P. 9-28.

Evolution of the problems and terminology of the training course “Library Services”

living was considered in the context of the theory of socialization as helping the individual in solving

life problems, as a process that “strengthens” the personality through familiarization with

information and reducing the degree of social tension in society by

providing equal opportunities to obtain the necessary information.

A significant place in the new textbook was given to the technology of library services and

Thus, the textbook “Library Services” solved the “problem of the moment” - reflected

new ideas about the role of the library in the life of society and the individual.

Of course, not all problems could be reflected equally in the textbook. This

the deficiency is, to a certain extent, made up for by a significant range of textbooks and printed materials.

specialists - teachers of industry universities in the country:

- Aleshin L.I., Dvorkina M.Ya. Library service using

computer tools. - M.-MGUK, 1995.

- Azarova V.A. Serving Readers: Professional Conduct Techniques:

Monograph. - Samara, 1998.

- Bespalov V.M. Library activities to help creative development personality. -

M.: MGUK, 1997.

- Borodina V.A. Psychology of reading: Tutorial. - St. Petersburg: SPbGAK, 1997.

- Dvorkina M.Ya. Library services as a system: Textbook. - M.:

- Zinovieva N.B. Information culture of personality: Textbook. - Krasnodar,

- Kreidenko B.S. Library service: Learning programs. Educational and methodological

materials - St. Petersburg: SPbGAK, 1997.

- Meizhis I.A. Social and psychological foundations of library services:

Tutorial. - Nikolaev, 1994.

Introduction

- Melentyeva Yu.P. The library as an institution for the socialization of personality: A textbook. -

M.: MGUK, 1995.

- Shaposhnikov A.E. Library services for people with disabilities: Textbook. - M.:

work significantly

enriched the problems of library services. Significantly expanded and

terminological system: along with the concept of “reader” the concept began to be used

“user”, “library subscriber”, “information consumer”, which reflected the processes

happenings in librarianship.

The concept of “library service” appeared; such areas of library science have formed

services such as “library conflictology” and “library ethics”; new impulse

the concept of library services as a kind of therapy has been developed

(“library therapy”); an idea of ​​the main trends has been formed

reading activity of Russian and world readers (“business reading”;

“compensatory reading”, etc.); further development of the information society and how

consequence, the strengthening of the information function of the library contributed to the emergence

such a concept as “personal information culture”; along with the previous ones

reading groups demanded significant attention from new migrants, marginalized people,

the elderly, as well as businessmen, entrepreneurs, etc. The task of the library

services becomes legal and environmental information, socialization and

social adaptation of the reader.

The works of sociologists have made a significant contribution to understanding the problems of the modern reader.

get acquainted and unbiasedly evaluate

improve the work of foreign libraries, enhance international professional

contacts, as well as thanks to publications of foreign colleagues who began to actively

translate into Russian

Today Russian libraries are enriching the process of library services for their

readers with the best experience of foreign libraries, use the most effective

technologies and techniques that have become quite accessible.

The active use of computer technology in libraries contributes to changes in

traditional library service process: new opportunities emerge

provision of documents and information, new services, new forms of service

(“virtual reading room”, “electronic delivery of documents”, etc.); he himself is changing

reader. Experts talk about the “new”, “electronic” reader, etc.

The problems of library services receive a constant impetus for development from

non-professional sphere, directly from society: organizations such as the UN,

UNESCO and others, setting certain tasks for the world community, actively

involves librarians in solving them

Contributing to the expansion of their scope

activities and the formation of new areas of library services, as well as

the emergence of uniform user service standards.

The trend of globalization of librarianship, the creation of a unified

world library, provided

See, for example, Critical Thinking and the Library: Proceedings of the Russian-American Seminar

Billington J. American public libraries in the information age: a constant goal in

periods of change.//Library and reading in a situation of cultural change. - Vologda, 1998 -

Asherwood B. The ABC of Communication, or Public Relations in the Library / Trans. from English - M.: “Liberea”,

See... for example. UNESCO Information for All Program.

Introduction

providing a range of services, i.e. library services, to any user, wherever he is

nor was there.

foreign library and library and information schools in foreign countries,

one of the leading ones. For example, American colleagues are constantly improving it by studying

library practice, assessing the effectiveness of innovations and improvements.

Library service curricula are primarily practical

character. The focus of developers' attention is, as a rule, on some topical issue.

issue - such as information literacy or library services

disabled people, or library services for the elderly - and which students should

learn to solve

Thus, it is obvious that the problems of library services are constantly

becomes more complex and deepening. It is clear that not a single textbook can “keep up” with the changes

reality, but it must provide the fundamental basis that will help the young

a specialist to solve the professional problems facing him

Theoretical and legislative foundations of library science

service

1.1. The concept of "library service".

Basic Concepts of Library Services

- Ideological.

- Pedagogical (educational).

- Educational.

- Socializing.

- Informational.

Library service is the most important generic function of the library. It is the appearance

figures of the reader, meeting his needs - that is, service - and makes

a library is a library, otherwise we can only talk about a book depository,

book warehouse, etc.

The idea of ​​the role of the library changed at various stages of social development. IN

different periods, the emphasis was placed on “propaganda”

de... printed works"

as the most important task of this process; then (in the 1990s) on

"meeting user needs"

; lately the majority

specialists consider library services as an activity aimed

to provide information requests of users (readers, subscribers, clients)

both directly in the library and outside its walls.

The library service process can be conceptualized on two levels.

Firstly, it can be considered as a social process, that is, having a certain

“super-task”, based on the belief that library services lead

to some social consequences and changes, both for a specific individual and for

various social groups of the population and for society as a whole, and Secondly, - How

technological process involving “a sequence of actions (operations,

procedures) librarian... aimed at providing the user with a certain

The challenge, however, is to synthesize all available knowledge and see

library service as a single holistic phenomenon.

It is known that the main indicators (goals, objectives, directions) of library

services, and especially the “super-tasks” assigned to it by society are determined

historical situation, sociocultural processes occurring in society, and,

first of all, by the attitude of society towards the individual and, consequently, towards to the reader, which

dominates the public consciousness during this period of time.

Thus, at the basis of one or another library service concepts, adopted in

society in a certain

Theoretical and legislative foundations of library services

ny period of its development lies attitude towards the reader that is - one or the other concept

reader.

A study conducted by V.Ya. Askarova shows that throughout

development of Russia as a reading state (X-XX centuries) “existed and difficult, often

interacted conflictingly four reader concepts: conservative-

protective, liberal, revolutionary-radical and commercial"

Each of these concepts has gone through a certain development path.

In different periods of time dominant became the one that most fully

corresponded to the social and sociocultural situation in the country: for example, during the period of liberal

reforms (for example, during the liberal policies of Alexander the First) actively

the liberal concept of the reader was formed and dominated; during periods of reaction,

“compression of freedoms” strengthened its position towards preserved protective-protective concept, etc. . By

Each of these concepts defined goals, tasks chi and "super ass chu » bib Lyautey important

having served ani I to A cat useful read elya, t as well as the entire population of the country.

Each of the names data to He concept is based on phylo sophistic theories of personal development sti,

memory theories Italy and about illumination, will educate and those valuable sti knowledge, etc. . d.

Research ani I'm showing yut , what the chats in With ex four k onc options have already arisen it's essentially

along with the emergence of Russian og O reader. Bo more fully they have issued in the 17th - 19th centuries.

and ok oncha in detail with formed ali in the 19th-20th centuries.

TO conservatively store linen to onc reader's response takes its toll originated from the times of the Ancient

Rus', which received “Christian energy” og O enlightenment", including books oh, from

Byzantium. T thin layer acquired puppies to the bookstore l tour (first of all oh spirit sheep,

princes) determined

regu reader's lation oh active sti and s book lecture o flow A.

G Lubin's essence Ouch To cheat concept A body: attitude towards the reader to A to to to about will educate the subject ania;

dividing books into “true, useful” and “lo” harmful, harmful"; about like establishment of knowledge and

faith, morality; attitude towards reading as dk ont role activities.

TO he is with erva protective-protective concept of everything yes present in Russian ohm

in general actually m consciousness aniia on Ray I guess it's new an impetus for development in mid-19th century On this from perio d

she was powerful held a to he is with erva creative thinkers. With the names K.N. Leontieva,

K.P. Pobe dono Stseva and others St. yazans ideas about art l Irova Research Institute of Russia from "rast" Lennogo" in lilies

West, oh X O dimo sti "freeze" morals soil veins y R O Russia, against O action t

people bottom of images aniyu as “contributing to times rotation." Education, reading up false

was to serve mation b lagointentionos you, preda but the history of the monarchy nutrition

pa T Riotism ma and religious morally sti. Christian O e in food appreciated rise higher than

knowledge. TO onserva tori active in interfered with the reading content. In frame ah Scientist

To People's Committee about about illumination, a special o department, to O who was doing

official hands ovodst vom reading through to stato very hard to publishing control Telsk Ouch,

books oras simple Ranitelsk O th, bib whether O those chnoy, school very active sti.

T A kim image m, co n serv at willow-ochre nit e linen to onc epcia cheat and those la was sent and on

with khra popular opinion bottom consciousness into spirit that's right glorious valuable stay, on the front rotation

people bottom of disobedience.

Modern research ateliers, seeing a certain positivity this moment oh theory in desire

general stabilization stavva, in strengthening the people bottom morality, cancel generally admire her

hopeless exists both because of the inconsistency with social dynamics and because oh what

the principle itself conservation contrapo lodge en continuously changing changing, fast mouth current

Theoret tical and legislative flax e basics of the library those personal service

PROBLEMS OF MODERN EDUCATION

2012, №1, 68-72

EVOLUTION OF UNDERSTANDING OF ESSENCE OF READING

Melentyeva Yu.P.

Head of department Scientific Center Research in the History of Book Culture of the Academic Publishing Center “Science” of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Doctor of Pedagogical Sciences, Professor, Deputy. Chairman of the Scientific Council on Reading Problems of the Russian Academy of Education

Melent'eva Y.P.

Chief of department of the Center for the study of book culture Akademizdatcentr “Nauka” of the Russian Academy of Sciences,

Deputy Chairman of Scientific Board of the Russian Academy of Eduction on the problems of reading Doctor of Science (Education), Professor

Annotation. The article examines reading as a complex multidimensional phenomenon, the roots of which go deep into the depths of civilization. The evolution of understanding the essence of reading in different eras (Antiquity, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Modern times) is analyzed. It is argued that understanding the essence of reading is extremely necessary for everyone involved in its promotion, because allows you to build the right strategy for introducing reading.

Annotation. Article views reading as a complex, multi-aspect phenomenon, with its roots dating back deep in the past of our civilization. The evolution of the understanding of the essence of reading (in the Ancient world, Middle ages, Renaissance period, Enlightenment period and modern time) and the reasons for the change in it are analyzed. The author assert that the understanding of the essence of reading is extremely important for everyone involved in promoting reading, since it allows to develop an effective strategy of attracting readers.

Keywords: reading, the essence of reading, types of reading, antinomies of reading, reading promotion.

Keywords: reading, essence of reading, types of reading, antinomies of reading, promotion of reading.

Interest in reading problems, which is observed today both in the professional environment and among the wider humanitarian community, is usually directed towards the analysis of modern reading indicators and their comparison with the situation in the past of one’s own country and other countries.

Meanwhile, in order to correctly assess the current state of reading, and to foresee trends in its development in the future, and to develop methods for attracting various categories of potential readers to reading, it is necessary to deeply study the nature of reading itself as a complex multidimensional phenomenon, to understand its essence, to comprehend the actual scale of this phenomenon, which, on the one hand, has the deepest roots in the depths of civilization, and, on the other hand, serves as one of its foundations.

Understanding the essence of reading (from the Latin “essentia”) (according to Aristotle - “Essence is that constant that the mind perceives in existence as its certainty”) - developed over many centuries and had its own characteristics in different historical eras.

1 The article was written with the support of the Russian Humanitarian Fund. Grant 10-01-00540a/B.

The first attempts to comprehend the essence of reading were made both in the depths of the East and in the Western world, which was developing in parallel with it.

(starting from the period of Antiquity) civilizations.

In general, we can distinguish three main concepts of reading, in which its essence is defined as:

Knowledge of God (divine truth);

Knowledge of the world and the place (role) of man in it;

Man's knowledge of himself.

The roots of all these concepts stretch back to ancient times, where they are intertwined so closely that it is difficult to separate one from the other. All these concepts existed (and exist today) in parallel, prevailing in one period or another in the development of civilization. Each of them constantly developed, became more detailed, finding new evidence of the correctness of its understanding of the essence of reading, then came to the fore, then retreated into the shadows, depending on the situation.

At the same time, it is possible, albeit with a fair degree of convention, to trace their evolution and in what historical periods any of these concepts prevailed.

Thus, the understanding of the essence of reading as a way of knowing God prevailed in all primitive societies, in the most ancient eastern (Muslim, Jewish, etc.) civilizations, where reading was considered as a sacred mediative practice.

In Europe, this concept was especially strong during the Middle Ages. At this time, the scope of European reading includes only those books (texts) that are necessary for understanding the Main Book - the Bible.

It should be noted that in Russia such an understanding of the essence of reading existed for almost seven centuries (X-XVII centuries), when the circle of reading consisted exclusively of liturgical literature.

Since “knowing God” presupposed not only reading the text, but also following the “Laws of God,” in this concept reading was also seen as a way of acquiring virtue, moral qualities that adorn the soul; as a way to comprehend the Truth.

On this basis, an ethical approach to reading was formed as a moral activity that promotes spiritual improvement and religious education.

It should be said that reading “secular” books with such an understanding of the essence of reading was considered a retreat and was not welcomed. At the same time, already during the Middle Ages, some scientists and thinkers of that time (for example, P. Abelard) treated reading (text) more freely, deviating from the established unbreakable tradition of “honoring the text.”

Adherents of this so-called “critical reading” formulated their positions this way: “to be able to separate sophistry from true evidence”; “don’t be afraid of freedom of opinion”; “not to be accepted as reliable, but to be understood as reliable.”

Thus, already during this period there was a tendency towards the desacralization of reading, which intensified significantly with the emergence of the first universities in Europe. The nature of reading, especially educational reading, acquires a pragmatic character, and the essence of reading is seen, first of all, in knowledge of the world.

Later, the Renaissance, overcoming the traditions of the Middle Ages and relying on the ancient tradition with its humanitarian overtones, with its inherent cult of Knowledge and Personality, clarified the understanding of the essence of reading, seeing in it a means not only of understanding the world, but also the place of man in it.

Developing this idea of ​​the essence of reading, the Renaissance raised the idea of ​​it to a new - pedagogical, educational - level: reading began to be seen as a means of developing the capabilities of a person himself, his personal improvement through turning to reading.

The invention of I. Guttenberg made books and reading much more accessible than before. The production of inexpensive (primarily educational) books arose. The range of published books and the circle of their readers is expanding enormously. Now reading has entered the economic system, where the book has become a commodity. The stratification of reading into “elite” and “mass” begins; The readership is differentiated by areas and topics of reading, by reading purposes, and by reader preferences.

Reading is integrated into the scientific knowledge of the world, into the process of secular (first humanitarian, and then technical) education and training. Reading is becoming an integral part of education and science. Modifications of business and educational reading are actively being formed.

The social prestige of reading is also increasing, and the ancient tradition of creating a personal library is being revived in educated circles. There is an understanding of the social significance of reading, which is further developed in the Age of Enlightenment.

During this period, the essence of reading is seen, first of all, in helping the mind, understood very broadly. The understanding is strengthened that reading should be beneficial and eliminate ignorance. Reading is considered as an element of scientific and cognitive activity.

This same understanding of the essence of reading is preserved in modern times (XVII - XVIII centuries), with its rationalism and pragmatism, when more and more specialized, scientific literature is published.

Encyclopedists considered reading as a means of accumulating, preserving and transmitting social (i.e., going beyond the framework of a single individual consciousness) experience. They, perhaps for the first time, closely connect reading with social action: individual development through reading it should serve the common good (D. Diderot). “A good essay is one that enlightens people and confirms them in goodness; bad - thickens the cloud that hides the truth from them, plunges them into new doubt and leaves them without moral rules,” emphasized F.-M. Voltaire.

During the Age of Enlightenment, the main task of reading was the destruction of ignorance in all spheres of life. It can be argued that the understanding of the essence of reading as a means of understanding the world and a person’s place in it has been prevalent for a long historical time and remains so to this day, when both the concept of “world” and the concept of “cognition” have become extremely complicated, deepened and expanded. This concept closely connects reading and education, which gives it the character of a socially useful phenomenon, i.e. connects reading with the solution of pedagogical, social and state (and therefore ideological) problems.

Thus, during this period, the social and pedagogical components of the essence of reading are realized.

This concept views reading, first of all, as a rational, intellectual process, with only a minimal degree of individual characteristics.

However, as a counterbalance to this purely rational understanding of the essence of reading, from the 18th century. understanding of the essence of reading and as an individual creative act is gaining strength.

The origins of this understanding are rooted in ancient (ancient and eastern) ideas about reading as a way of personal self-improvement, as an ethical and spiritual communication.

Based on these ideas, scientists of that time, first of all, I. Kant, saw the essence of reading in promoting the development of a person’s internal spiritual culture.

According to the general concept of cognition and activity of I. Kant, reading is a free creative act in which a complex synthesis of the sensual and rational occurs with the help of the power of imagination, understanding, and comprehension, which, of course, has the character of not a passive, but a creative reflection of the text.

I. Kant places the reader at the center of reading, seeing a necessary element of reading in the co-creation of the reader. The reader, when reading, does not reflect the world, but creates it. At the same time, the reader’s perception of the text is not always adequate to what the author put into it. Therefore, I. Kant believes, reading is a “thing in itself,” a noumenon; it always contains an unknowable remainder.

The deep essence of reading is associated by I. Kant with the fact that it (reading) cannot be considered as an act of full consciousness; with the fact that all externally observable forms of reading are only weak manifestations of its existential depth; with the fact that, as a free creative individual act, reading does not necessarily set practical goals.

Thus, an aesthetic model of reading is formed, where the essence of reading is the promotion of the development of a person’s inner, spiritual world.

In the 19th century With the beginning of the development of capitalist relations in Europe, literacy became widespread, and reading became an everyday activity. Its sacredness as a highly spiritual activity is noticeably reduced. During this period, the active formation in society, on the one hand, of the economic, political, spiritual elite, and, on the other hand, of the people

masses, the so-called “manufactured goods”, “spiritual rabble” leads to the final formation of two reading cultures: “elite” and “mass”, the first symptoms of the division of which were noticeable back in ancient times.

The beginning of the 20th century, when throughout Europe (including Russia) not only a political, economic, but also a spiritual crisis was clearly felt, became an era of self-expression, when all culture in the broadest sense, and above all literature, focused all attention on the inner human world. During this period, reading became the most important way for a person to understand himself, i.e. the essence of reading was defined as a person’s knowledge of himself.

During this period, reading, on the one hand, becomes an everyday occurrence, on the other hand, highly intellectual (“Reading is the communication of lonely geniuses”; “Reading is the search for oneself in others”).

It is impossible not to see that the roots of this understanding of the essence of reading are deeply rooted in history and are connected with the inherent understanding of ancient society of reading as a spiritual practice, a method of self-improvement that brings a person closer to God.

Thus, depending on the understanding of its essence, three types of reading can be distinguished:

1) Ethical (educational, developing, cognitive);

2) Utilitarian (pragmatic, functional);

3) Aesthetic (emotional, creative, existential).

It is obvious that the essence of reading is an extremely complex entity.

In various historical eras, the ethical, social-pedagogical, cognitive, utilitarian, creative, and existential aspects of the essence of reading came to the fore.

However, speaking about the essence of reading, about its value for the ethical, intellectual, aesthetic, spiritual, intellectual development personality and society and the importance of solving problems associated with the task of introducing as many people as possible (children and adults) to it, it would be wrong not to touch upon the problem of a negative (or, rather, skeptical) attitude towards reading.

Opponents of reading proceed from the fact that not every book carries truly valuable knowledge, is talented, or is truthful. It is worth noting that the understanding that not everything needs to be read that is written was already inherent in Antiquity.

There are 2 antinomies in understanding the value of reading: on the one hand: “A person stops thinking when he stops reading”; on the other hand, “Reading other people’s thoughts prevents the birth of your own”; on the one hand, “well-read” as a positive personality characteristic; on the other hand, “overreading” as a trait of a person who is divorced from reality.

F-M. Voltaire pointed out the “terrible harm of reading.” F. Bacon spoke about the possible negative impact of reading if one does not learn undistorted understanding. A. Schopenhauer argued that “When we read, someone else thinks for us; while reading, our head is, in essence, an arena of other people’s thoughts.” Modern philologist, writer, thinker W. Eco admits that “we have too exalted an idea of ​​the book, we willingly idolize it. But in fact, if you look closely, the vast majority of our libraries are made up of books written by people who are completely untalented...”

M. Proust pointed out that “reading brings a person closer to spiritual life, indicates the existence of this sphere, but it is not able to lead us inside; reading is located on the threshold of spiritual life”3.

It is also impossible not to see that some books carry a strong charge of hatred (Mein Kampf and many others of that kind).

2 Antinomy (from the Greek “contradiction”) is a situation in which contradictory statements about the same phenomenon or object have logically equal grounds. Their truth or falsity cannot be justified within the accepted paradigm. I. Kant explains antinomy as a contradiction into which theoretical reason falls with itself when it relates the idea of ​​the absolute to the world as the totality of all phenomena. It is known that I. Kant formulated a number of fundamental antinomies of a moral, religious and aesthetic nature.

3 According to I. Kant, we know about Space. Time, Matter, etc. only as about appearances (phenomena), but we know nothing about what “things-in-themselves” (noumena) are. Reading is also a “thing-in-itself”.

Some studies have linked intense reading to insanity, suicide, etc. It is impossible not to notice the duality of the essence of reading as a social phenomenon: on the one hand, reading contributes to the formation of moral and competent people, which is necessary for the state for moral, economic and political development, and on the other hand, reading stimulates freethinking and independence of the individual, which affects stability state system.

Of course, free reading contributes to the formation of a free personality, its own position, which in authoritarian societies is corrected by the introduction of censorship and the formation of a reading circle that corresponds to officially accepted values.

Thus, it is necessary to understand that, like any other phenomenon, reading does not carry the absolute category of Good.

As a means of obtaining information, as a means of communication, as a means of understanding and knowledge, reading is ambivalent. A positive or negative charge is given to it by the intentions of the reader (and writer). And also - let's add - a recommender. Therefore, it seems that knowledge about the essence of reading and its evolution is extremely necessary for those who are engaged in its promotion, because allows you to build the right strategy for introducing reading to an individual at different stages life path and experiencing the need for “different reading”.

It is obvious that in the modern electronic, network, computer era, understanding of the essence of reading is deepening. In a situation of expanding visual opportunities for learning and communication, it (the essence) acquires a certain special character, because it is necessary to recognize that reading remains the only way to become familiar with world knowledge (science, culture) and experience (intellectual, emotional, pragmatic), recorded in written form on any medium - parchment, paper, screen. This is precisely the essence of reading today (“super-essence”), which has yet to be deeply comprehended.

Bibliography:

1. Melentyeva Yu.P. General theory reading. Statement of the problem.//Reading in education and culture. M.: RAO, 2011.

2. Shaposhnikov A.E. History of reading in Russia. X-XX centuries. M., Liberea, 2001.

3. Ravinsky D.K. Book - a textbook of life?//Library and reading: collection of scientific works/Ros.nat.b-ka-St. Petersburg, 1995.

4. History of reading in the Western world from Antiquity to the present day /compiled by G. Cavallo, R. Chartier. Scientific ed. Russian edition Yu.P. Melentyeva. - M.: Publishing House "Fair", 2008. - 544 p.

5. Quarry Zh-K, Eco U. Don't expect to get rid of books! - St. Petersburg: Symposium, 2010.- 336 p.

6. Book in the culture of the Renaissance. - M.: Nauka, 2002. - 271 p.

7. Melentyeva Yu.P. Reading: phenomenon, process, activity. - M.: Nauka, 2010.-181 p.

8. Semenovker B.A. Evolution of information activities. Handwritten information. Part 1-2. M.: Pashkov House, 2009-2011. Part 1. p.248; Part 2. 336 pp. (Russian State Library).

9. Stefanovskaya N.A. Existential foundations of reading. - Tambov, 2008. -264 p.

Internet magazine “PROBLEMS OF MODERN EDUCATION”