title: On One Significant Fragment of N. I. Bukharin’s Report at the XIII Congress of the RCP(b): Talgenism pro et contra
metadata.name: dc.contributor.author
metadata.value: Golubev, E. B.
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.accessioned
metadata.value: 2022-06-30T10:51:36Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.available
metadata.value: 2022-06-30T10:51:36Z
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.date.issued
metadata.value: 2022-03
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.citation
metadata.value: Golubev E. B. ‘On One Significant Fragment of N. I. Bukharin’s Report at the XIII Congress of the RCP(b): Talgenism pro et contra’, Modern History of Russia, vol. 12, no. 1, 2022, pp. 185–200.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.identifier.other
metadata.value: https://doi.org/10.21638/11701/spbu24.2022.111
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.identifier.uri
metadata.value: http://hdl.handle.net/11701/37031
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.description.abstract
metadata.value: Talgenism, as a new teaching method, was discussed at the XIII Congress of the Russian Communist
  Party (Bolsheviks) in N. I. Bukharin’s report “On work among young people” in 1924. This article analyzes details
  and presumed possible consequences of that critical speech against Talgenism. Bukharin’s criticism became
  well-known among the pedagogical community more than thirty years ago after half a century of oblivion. Then,
  in the late 1980s, the study of the history of the discovery and spread of the unique method of collective mutual
  learning of A. G. Rivin (Talgenism) began. Materials of followers and supporters, and also of opponents of
  A. G. Rivin, were found in archives, magazines, newspapers, and books. Bukharin’s critical speech was also discovered.
  However, at the same time, an opinion formed among teachers that the result of such a crushing “rout”
  (at the party congress) was immediate: the criticized material was seized and extirpated. The author argues that
  this position is erroneous, as he discovered an article by A. Vyshnepolskaya on Talgenism, which Bukharin criticized
  at the congress, in the archival collection of the Russian National Library. In addition, it became possible to
  find important details about the author of the text and the publication itself and put it into circulation. The analysis
  of the relationship between power and education in 1920–1930 is carried out and reveals assumptions about
  the reasons for criticism of the new teaching method, and the virtues of Talgenism are analyzed. The article is
  provided with information about the fate of the Moscow Committee of party personnel, whose work was criticized
  at the congress.
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.language.iso
metadata.value: ru
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.publisher
metadata.value: St Petersburg State University
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.relation.ispartofseries
metadata.value: Modern History of Russia;Volume 12; Issue 1
metadata.lang: -
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: Talgenism
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: method of A. G. Rivin
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: N. I. Bukharin
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: method of mobile dialogue
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.subject
metadata.value: paired combinations
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.title
metadata.value: On One Significant Fragment of N. I. Bukharin’s Report at the XIII Congress of the RCP(b): Talgenism pro et contra
metadata.lang: en_GB
metadata.name: dc.type
metadata.value: Article
metadata.lang: en_GB
resources.filename: 11_golubev_1.pdf
resources.url: https://dspace.spbu.ru/bitstream/11701/37031/1/11_golubev_1.pdf
resources.format: Adobe PDF
resources.size: 810,84 kB