Кендирбекова Ж.Х, Багжанова А.Ж.

Карагандинский государственный университет имени академика

Е.А. Букетова, Казахстан

Analysis of specific of ethno-cultural education of the individual in the context of globalization

The modern world is undergoing complex processes of globalization, which has become a hallmark of our days. The main ideas of the present time are cooperation and understanding, finding the unity through differences and diversity conservation. Orientation of globalization for the simultaneous integration and unification does not preclude the possible cross-cultural tensions, potentially characteristic for all multicultural communities due to the nature of their contentiousness.

Strengthening multi-ethnicity in society exacerbates ethnic relations problems in respect of a possible reduction in tolerance of mass consciousness. In turn, “the peace and harmony, dialogue of cultures and religions in our multinational country are rightly recognized as the global benchmark” [1]. In this context, the pursuit of globalization reflects the objective process of strengthening mutual influence of countries and peoples. For the educational system, this means the change and development of mass and individual consciousness of multiethnic society under the influence of global cultural processes that actualize the problem of determining the methodological fundamentals of this component’s essence in the conditions of globalization process.

Cultural identity has always existed, at all stages of development of human society. In the most general sense, “the culture is a social fact as far as it is representative of the culture, that is, produces ideas, values that are effective because of their factual recognition [2, p. 23]. From this we can conclude that society can exist and develop fruitfully only if it overcomes the contradictions between culture and social relations, only constantly is restoring their unity.

Ethnicity or ethnic group is the group of people who share a common culture, they speak, as a rule, the same language and understand it as their community, and their difference from other members of the same human groups. In this context, the cultural identity or cultural specificity reflects the form of ethnic specificity, or just ethnicity. As a result, the person as the main bearer of this specificity can be characterized as both socially defined and ethnically specific. At the same, the socio-economic structure through culture defines the essence of man as a social being - personality and culture originality draws ethnic manifestation of this social entity.

J. de Vos in the “The ethnic pluralism: Conflict and Adaptation” emphasizes that the individual, his “I” are included in the culture and at the same time in social and hierarchical structure of modern society. Stressing multidirection and versatility of posed problem, he notes that “the human history gives us many combinations of tension and tools relating to contradictions between adherences to past ethnicity, present status and future idealized notion of the society”. While J. de Vos examines ethnicity at four levels of analysis: “... the first is at the social structure level, the second is as a model of social interaction, and the third is as a subjective experience of identity, and the fourth is as the expression in a relatively stable models of behavior and emotional styles” [3, p. 283].

S. Shalom, considering the countries as a single cultural unity, came to the conclusion that they “rarely are homogeneous society with a common culture for all” [4, p. 45]. Different countries are autonomous system of values and ideas that define the type of social organization. Similar data were reported by I.Ronald: “socio- cultural changes depend on the historical path of the development of peoples. Valuable systems are the result of the interaction of modernization driving forces and the influence of tradition. Although supporters of the classic version of modernization both in the West and in the East believed that ethnic and religious factors will soon lose their significance, they are actually proved to be extremely tenacious, despite the fact that the citizens of industrialized and industrializing countries are getting richer, their cultural attitudes and values are not unified” [5, p. 167].

Consequently, “.. preservation of national specificities is the basis of the actual development of humanity, realization of universal human values, respect to roots, history, the pledge of stability of the social system, love for one’s people and culture, the basis of the psychological stability of personality. Desire to preserve the traditions, culture, respect for the history of his people, man’s search for his identity, the content of his “I” are all this, in the opinion of the leading representatives of the humanistic approach to man E. Fromm and A. Maslow is a deep and fundamental need of the individual” [3, p. 176].

The modern society is represented by the merger of two major cultural types: the east and west, each of which has its own specific features and characteristics. Separation of cultures on the western and eastern implies different mentality of the peoples living in these areas, i.e. there is a difference in characteristic of ways and methods of knowledge of the world, values, fundamental worldviews, socio-economic and political structures.

“The foundation of Western civilization and its phenomenon ... is laid in the idea of the individual, and having a private initiative” [6, p. 453]. For this reason, the problem of interaction between cultures and civilizations, civilization models comes into contact with the idea of individual’s self-realization. As for the foundations of the Eastern culture, the characteristics are cyclical time, conservatism, culture which is not linear and is not in constant circulation, hence the strong influence of such factor as continuity in society. Eastern approach to the world is different from the western in that it is not analytical. The world is perceived in its entirety and integrity...” [6, p. 459]. The problem of “confrontation” of East and West people cultures was observed at all times. But today it is not characterized by categorical opposition and intransigence. In our opinion, this is due to the fact that the modern educated man, having a representation of many branches of scientific knowledge, cultural peculiarities, differs by a relatively high degree of tolerance and comprehension of the fact that in this kind of diversity, the relationship of form and content, where forms are opposed manifests.

Today, there is close relationship of all spheres of public life, united the country and continents, which imposes a huge imprint on the interaction and transformation of cultures. In this context, stressing the need to preserve the uniqueness of Kazakh society, President of the Republic of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev defines development of cultural integration of Kazakhstan as strategic direction into the global community: “We must learn to live in coexistence of cultures and religions. We must be committed to the dialogue of cultures and civilizations. Only in dialogue with other nations, our country will be able to achieve success and influence in the future. In the XXI century Kazakhstan should strengthen its regional leader position and become a bridge for dialogue and interaction between East and West”. [1] Dialogue occurs on the basis of revolutionary change of attitudes towards the person as to an object of education. V. Bibler formulated the notion that “spiritual and valuable spectra of different forms of culture (West, East, Europe, Asia, Africa) are pulled together in one cultural space, in one consciousness and thought, require not a unique choice from the person, but constant spiritual coupling, mutual transfer, deep dispute in the midst of some... the eternal questions of life. And in this - in the dialogue among different cultural meanings of existence is the essence... of modern logic thinking” [7, p. 22-23].

Strategic definition of state policy of Kazakhstan in the sphere of interethnic relations identifies as a necessary component of the educational model focused on the preservation of the ethnic groups’ values representing its multinational composition. In this regard, the above concept of dialogue among cultures involves, on the one hand, the trend of knowledge convergence, and on the other - dialogic study of each of them. Without the development of cultural heritage, a full-fledged development of the society cannot be, as the loss of this invaluable experience generates the mancurtism phenomenon.

The founders of the cultural education determination (A. Disterveg, K.D. Ushinsky K. Helvetius, J. Locke and others) as one of the most important principles of education content construction determined cultural congruity principle because it allowed fixing the need to consider historically achieved level of culture and educational ideal of the society.

We distinguish it as a priority in determining the nature of ethno-cultural education. Personality development in harmony with the universal culture depends on valuable grounds of education.

Analysis of the sources (Zh.Zh. Nauryzbai, T.G. Stefanenko, etc.) led to the conclusion that the preservation of ethnic in culture “... should be organized not as a human adaptation to a new culture, but as the acquisition of knowledge about customs regulations, values, behavior stereotypes of other people without breaking with own culture” [2, p. 348]. Ethnic diversity, the presence of major religious denominations, as well as the orientation of the population in two languages - state Kazakh and Russian in our country, strengthen the relevance of ethno-cultural education.

Today, the need for “human dimension” of global challenges aims at the development of “human” in the person, at the improvement and development of hit culture and spirituality. Thus, in the current social and cultural conditions of globalization development, ethnocultural education appears particularly relevant, designed to provide spiritual and moral development, favorable personality- environment interactions, the formation of man’s social competence. This can be explained by its target fostering of cultural identity formation, providing the possibility of self-affirmation and self-actualization in the culture, social and creative self-fulfillment.

Literature:

1. Message from the President of the Republic of Kazakhstan - Leader of the Nation Nursultan Nazarbaev to people of Kazakhstan “Strategy “Kazakhstan- 2050”: a new political course of the established state”.

2. Ethnopsychology: Textbook for Universities / T.G. Stefanenko. - 4th ed., Rev. and add. - M.: Aspect Press, 2009. – 368pp.

3. Belik A.A. Culture and personality. Psychological Anthropology. Ethnopsychology. Psychology of Religion: Textbook. Moscow: Russian State Humanitarian Univ. 2001. 368 pp.

4. Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Economics, 2008. V.5, № 2.P.37-67.

5. Inozemtsev V.L. (eds.) Democracy and modernization: to a discussion about the challenges of the XXI century / Center for Post-Industrial Studies; Prolusion of V.L. Inozemtsev. - Moscow: Publishing House “Evropa”, 2010. - 318 pp.

6. A.N. Nysanbayev Philosophy of understanding. - Almaty: Home Edition “Kazak entsiklopediyasy” - 2001. - 544 pp.

7. A.N. Jurinsky Pedagogy of interethnic communication: multicultural education in Russia and abroad. Textbook. - M.: TC Sfera, 2007. - 224 pp. (Textbook).