Translated material
Segregation comes from childhood
The image of the people according to the version of "fiction" © Mr. Freeman
I remember that in Soviet literature textbooks Nekrasov’s poem “Who Lives Well in Rus'” was called an encyclopedia of the people’s life in post-serf Russia. The definition is a little crafty: de facto, it is only a collection of the sentiments of one social group, namely the lyrical populism of democratic intellectuals. The young creative class of the Russian Federation has its own collection of knowledge about the people - Lurkmorye , a sociocultural encyclopedia compiled, according to the clear definition of its unknown authors, “from the point of view of the intellectual minority.” It is clear that this source contains information of amazing reliability and objectivity, but not about blue collar workers, but about the authors and readers of Lurk.
From this life-giving source you can glean tons of valuable information in the most concentrated form. Thus, the Russian intelligentsia is convinced that the country is inhabited by extremely unpleasant, ugly and dangerous subhumans, who are collectively called cattle and rednecks, and their children are called gopniks. These creatures vote for Putin and “United Russia”, love Stalin, are characterized by a “slave mentality”, an innate inability to think independently, hatred of free and successful people (nonsense), leavened patriotism, superstition, as well as perverted morality, which is based on the principle “who is stronger is right”. Since there are 95% of them in the country, the intelligentsia does not rely on the people to change the social structure, and some desperate representatives are convinced that nothing will save this country, the best way out is exterminatus (of this country, of course).
It is difficult to find a country in the world where the producers of new meanings are so massively seized by caste-based disgust for those strata who are lower on the social ladder - and this is after almost a century of modernity. Unless neighbors in the post-Soviet space can compete with Russia. Why is this so? The modern world is structured in such a way that close communication between intellectuals and the people is not necessary. Cars are now repaired in faceless dealerships, without bothering to find craftsmen; construction or renovation are one-time events that are not conducive to establishing informal relationships. Where, then, did all these detailed and vivid descriptions, filled with contempt and snobbery, come from? It is unlikely that hostile propaganda could single-handedly cope with such a complex task, especially since intellectuals fundamentally do not watch TV and do not read newspapers, except for those where there are no descriptions of the everyday life of the lower strata as a class. However, a rational explanation for this phenomenon can be found.
Every year in early February, populated areas of the former Soviet Union are shaken—now and literally, thank Chinese fireworks—with ritual feasts known as class reunions. Preparations for these celebrations often begin before the New Year, with discussions over the phone, preliminary meetings to discuss details, etc. - in general, people approach the issue thoroughly. But this wave practically does not affect the intelligentsia: LiveJournal and Facebook traditionally remain gloomily silent, sometimes spitting out maxims like “I don’t attend these redneck parties on principle and don’t intend to.” This February, the entry “Why I won’t go to the meeting of my classmates” was indicatively published in the top LiveJournal. Hundreds of people in the comments signed every word of the author (even though we are talking about an American school), enthusiastically sharing the horrors of their school childhood and advice on how to resist bullying by classmates.
Indeed, this is what is common between guardians and revolutionaries, theorists and practitioners, generals and privates of the ideological struggle. And we are talking not so much about geniuses like Perelman, who are close to autism (Perelmans are not visible on social networks), but about excellent and good students of the en masse. It is they, aged approximately 25-50 years, who inhabit all floors of the creative house of cards, producing and disseminating new meanings, as well as information noise. Almost all of them felt like white crows at school, rejected by the thick-skinned, dull and cruel okhlos, who tend to flock together. Moreover, it is a matter of subjective perception, regardless of the fact whether alienation and bullying took place or not.
These facts lead to a sad but logical conclusion: the Soviet school, such as it became during the era of stagnation, is primarily to blame for the fear and hatred of the modern Russian intelligentsia towards the people.
Due to their age, the subjects of “meaning creation” received secondary education in the USSR or the early post-Soviet period, when people from the lower strata, including frankly socially disadvantaged ones, also ended up in elite special schools at their place of residence. But the majority studied in ordinary schools, which, even with a good reputation, were more than half populated by the children of proletarians (and some almost entirely). As an example, we will consider just such a massive late Soviet school with a “strong” reputation - which means that approximately half of the students had at least one parent with a higher education.
Rejection and mistrust between groups of children in the class really existed, but it did not take place along the lines of “C student-hooligan vs. excellent student-geek.” This is what excellent students then mistakenly think, having received visual and often tactile confirmation of the vices of the “plebeians” at school.
Try to remember how many intellectuals you know, or just mediocre office clerks with parents without higher education? There are very few of these, and the younger the contingent, the more difficult it will be to find at least one.
In the stagnant years, and even more so later, the Soviet school clearly did not fulfill the main task of a socialist educational institution - providing the child with the opportunity for self-realization, regardless of his social origin. The children of enterprise management, engineers and workers studied in the same class until the early 1990s. But if in elementary school academic performance depended little on the social background of the parents, then by the 7th-8th grade everything gradually “fell into place.” The children of proletarians fell into grades, and students of “decent” origin, even with obvious questions about the speed and quality of thinking, became good students. There are two main reasons for this. Firstly, this is the atmosphere in the family, some were inclined to fully prepare their homework, while others were absolutely the opposite; secondly, the bias of many teachers, whose assessment of identical works directly correlated with the social origin of the author.
It is quite natural that in such conditions, by adolescence, some students developed motivation to continue their education, while others developed apathy towards learning and a feeling of total injustice around them. Talented, socially active teenagers felt this especially acutely, and they became informal leaders of the “C” students. This is how the future kreakly, the main beneficiaries of the late Soviet school, entered into an existential contradiction with those who were destined to remain at the bottom of the social pyramid or fight their way out of the bottom using criminal methods.
A little later, at the turn of the 1990s, competition for “gymnasium” classes in primary schools appeared, and the situation only worsened, approaching the German model .
The late Soviet school turned into a mechanism for the self-reproduction of social strata - this was its main drawback, essentially fundamentally contradicting the right of citizens to education and self-realization for the benefit of society. The family and its social status continue to play a major role in a person’s destiny. Day school is not enough to provide equal access to knowledge, even with good programs and teachers. And if this problem is not solved, any socialist project will end in something similar to modern Russia.