2020/3, стр. 302 - 321

IMAGE OF THE OTHER IN TEACHING HISTORY: HUMANISTIC POTENTIAL OF THE INTERSUBJECTIVE APPROACH

Резюме:

Ключови думи:

Introduction. Topicality

Cultural diversity and the culture of coexistence of the plural in today’s conditions acquire a dimension of the global problem of humankind existence. Its essence lies in the fact that the approach of “other worlds” drastically affects life practices, moral-worldview guidelines and cultural values of a person. This influence is ambivalent in nature. On the one hand, a person acquires new experience, new knowledge and skills overcoming the boundaries of his cultural environment. On the other hand, against the background of unity and the search for the common or tangible things in cultural diversity, the risk of losing the unique and original ones increases. It is obvious that the integrative-global image of the world, which “is woven” from the discourse of various valuable civilizational heritage, is accompanied by the intensification of ethnic, cultural, religious, economic revival and symbolizes the extreme contradictions of the global world.

This circumstance is especially significant for the Ukrainian state-building processes. The relevance is determined by the global development contradictions, which intensify against the background of the Ukrainian society internal problems. In today’s conditions, the Ukrainian community has already faced political instability, underdevelopment of civil society institutions, social polarization of a rapidly growing society, economic decline, dependence on energy resources, significant disturbances of ecosystems, and cultural degradation. Accordingly, globalization processes only exacerbate these challenges and require adequate responses. Their importance and relevance is amplified by the fact that the problems of different ethnic, linguistic, cultural, gender, racial, religious and other groups are subject to political speculation and threaten to the processes of state formation (as an example, the card for separation was repeatedly played during the elections population by “lines of cultural division”). In essence, Ukraine must tackle the challenge of ensuring cultural, religious, and other diversity while creating a national identity.

It should be noted that the problems faced by modern Ukrainian society are problems of its entire history. The history of mankind is a holistic formation. That is, it can never be entirely new. There are obviously long-term conditions, structures that can withstand the pressure of change, predetermining the corresponding individual events and processes that are experienced by humans over time. According to German scholar R. Koselleck (2003), the present can mean the intersection point where the past becomes the future, that is, the intersection point of three temporal dimensions, where the present always disappears. Thus, it is an imaginary zero point on the imaginary axis of time. A person is always past in time as long as there is a future ahead of him (Koselleck, 2003). That is, the present turns into an imaginary nothing that attests to human belonging to both the past and the future. Obviously, an awareness of what is happening to society today and what may happen in the future is possible provided that the experience of the past is understood. In the legacy of the past, you need to look for experience, ideas and examples to overcome adversity and dangers. It is about the relevance of the experience of the historical past in finding ways of constructive and balanced resolution of social contradictions, the restoration of a “sense of a united family”, without which it is impossible to imagine a healthy full-fledged Ukrainian nation. The events of the past only take on a value in the context of the demands of the present.

Understanding the socio-cultural significance of the experience of the past in solving the problems of the present causes a growing interest in history as a discipline. Historical education not only gives knowledge about the experience of past generations but also acts as an “agent of the future”, because it shapes the personal qualities of man, influences the development of personal worldview, leads to the search for the meaning of their own existence. Scholar K. Ulusoy (2017) notes that historical education helps not only to understand the past events and the present problems. Its educational mission is very important. It consists in the fact that historical education presents the experience of acquiring and preserving universal human values, such as: kindness, justice, honesty, tolerance, solidarity, mutual assistance, etc. They are fundamental because they help to overcome ethnocentrism, intolerance, xenophobia and so on. According to the scholar the history lesson is one of the leading courses that will provide the society with the opportunity to understand its own uniqueness (Ulusoy, 2017).

Taking into account the fact that historical education aims to establish a kind of bridge between cultures and religions, fostering the young generation’s capacity for mutual tolerance and empathy in accepting the Other, fostering spiritual flexibility and the ability to compromise, to understand the values and priorities different from usual, to recognize the social equality, because all people are equally valuable and so there is a problem finding effective methodological approaches to transferring scientific knowledge about the past through education. One of such approaches is an intersubjective approach.

The purpose of our article is to examine the humanistic potential of an intersubjective approach to the understanding of the Other and to foster spiritual flexibility and the ability to compromise through historical education.

Review of the research on the topic

Scholars actively use the concept of intersubjectivity in modern interdisciplinary study. In general, in the socio-cultural perspective of the study, it denotes an intersubjective interaction, which is carried out on the terms of equality, value and significance of each participant. From a methodological point of view, intersubjectivity is presented as a tool, using which you can comprehend the world as a set of interactions of Others, which appear and are considered as a unique world of existences. The atypicality of the Other does not mean contradiction or opposition, but presupposes understanding of the Other as one’s own assessment of the world, which presents other forms of thinking, worldview-value priorities and life practices (Hanaba et al., 2019).

The concept of intersubjectivity was first introduced into the scientific discourse by German philosopher E. Husserl (1998). In his work Cartesian Reflections, he interpreted it as a special product of consciousness, which shows that along with ego there is a different, non-identical alter ego. “However, this different ego is not just present or is given to us as it is – it is constructed as an alter ego… According to its constituted meaning, “the other” is my own reflection, and at the same time is not so, it is my own analogue, and again an analogue in the unusual sense of the word” (Husserl, 1998, p.189 – 190). According to the scholar the special nature of the alter ego is that this otherness is not perceived as a natural-physical object. Alter ego has a psychophysical nature. The point is that its otherness, uniqueness, difference becomes “visible” as a result of the consciousness work of ego. That is, the consciousness indicates that there are other transcendental subjects around the Self. They are equally valuable and meaningful to the ego because they create their own unique world of being. The world of intersubjectivity is based on respect and recognition of the uniqueness of each participant. Otherwise, non-recognition of the Other leads to a simplified, unified understanding of the world where there is no focus on personality (Husserl, 1998).

It should be noted that the intersubjectivity problem has found its further development in the works of many researchers. In particular, J.-P. Sartre (1989), J. Baudrillard (2000), M. Buber (2004), B. Waldenfels (2004) presented their own original concepts of this phenomenon in their scientific studies. Despite the variety of judgments and interpretations, the unifying idea of their reasoning is to understand the phenomenon of the Otherness as a concrete, authentic world, and not a derivative of ego-consciousness. Thus, the representative of the existentialism philosophy J.-P. Sartre (1989) understands the phenomenon of the Otherness as a person’s identity. In his opinion, identity is a human’s individual nature, which is expressed in psycho-emotional and spiritual uniqueness. A person creates and demonstrates this uniqueness to himself and the world throughout his life, always remaining a project, that is, a combination of opportunities, desires and aspirations, and not a complete entity. The act of one’s own creation cannot take place without the participation of the Others. In fact, their difference and uniqueness provide “food” for the development of the Self. The essence of the Self is revealed through the Other (Sartre, 1989). Thus, the Other is not hostile and alien, but the one who shows involvement in the personal world of the Self. Co-existence, co-experience, co-action of the Self and the Other is a condition for developing the Self. This development is realized in the connection, where the Self is the Other and vice versa the Other is the Self. In this sense, the views of J. Baudrillard (2000) are quite reasonable. The scholar analyses a person’s Self through the prism of the development and change process of the Self essence. He presents the transcendental experience of the Otherness as a social mirror, looking into which the Self acquires knowledge and experience, perceives its experiences and feelings and on the basis of the received information it carries out its own sphere correction (Baudrillard, 2000). The Other is the life and development elixir for the Self. In “Topography of the Alien: Studies in the Phenomenology of the Alien” B. Waldenfels (2004) forwards the idea of diplomatic sovereignty, the inviolability of the Alien, the notion which we consider to be identical to the notion “the Other”. This idea is based on the recognition that One’s Own and the Other’s (Alien’s) worlds are not autonomous units. On the contrary, they acquire their uniqueness only in interaction with each other. According to scholar, this interaction involves the complementarity of One’s Own and the Other (Alien). It results in creation of inter-worlds, cultural inter-space, i.e. universalization in the plural. The Otherness (Alienness) in interaction with One’s Own world is able to crystallize its new meanings and facets, i.e. to generate “alienness to itself” (Waldenfels, 2004: 24). Understanding the Other as an indispensable condition for the development of my Self is an important methodological guideline in the historical education development. It is about recognizing the universal and personal rights of people who represent different cultural communities. The historical past in the light of intersubjectivity is interpreted as a set of unique, valuable cultural worlds and life practices of the Others, present the “agreement” of the individual and the joint constitution of a single semantic horizon, even if the Other remains (alien and hostile) (Hanaba, 2010).

The next methodological guideline is the recognition of the equal status of different cultures in a certain society, joint responsibility, cooperation and interdependence. The Self – the Other connection is considered as a correlate of reality intersubjective constitution. The point is that the interaction of the Others is valuable and significant, provided that their equality is recognized. Complex interweaving, connections, influences of cultures of different peoples and their worldview positions in a single world culturological space illuminate the dialogue. In the dialogic interaction the Other does not obey, is not assigned to my Self, it remains an “insoluble” individuality (Hanaba et al., 2019). The concept of dialogue implies a “meeting” with another reality dimension, which is not considered as an abstraction or an object of neutral analysis which must be understood and assigned to the Self. Actually, M. Buber draws attention to this exactly circumstance. The philosopher is convinced that in a dialogue a person is guided not only by the internal laws of his personality, since he is always doomed to “encounter” and withstand the pressure of the other’s reality. This other reality pushes him out of his usual life path and encourages to create new, different landmarks of existence (Buber, 2004).

The focus of historical education not only on the transferring life experiences of past generations, but also on the inner world of existences of both a person of the past and a contemporary of educational interaction was reflected in scientific studies of F. Alvn (2017), S. R. E. Klein (2010), H. E. Knudsen (2020), S. Hanaba (2010), Y. Vella (2020), K. Ulusoy (2017). The scholars believe that a person should learn to respect the world of other values. Mutual tolerance and empathy in accepting the Other, cultivating spiritual flexibility and the ability to compromise will allow a person to cultivate his own system of values effectively.

Statement of the main material

The construction and development of historical education, taking into account the methodological orientations of the intersubjective approach, will make it possible to present it as a factor of social consolidation, and not as an instrument of ideological confrontation. It rethinks, in accordance with the realities of today, the experience gained from the past, which projects the contours of the future. One of the goals of historical education is to teach young people to navigate modern multicultural society.

The experience of the past carries images of the world and ways of understanding them that do not “disappear” in the darkness of ages but are transformed into the realities of the present, acquiring new meanings. Studying the historical past, we intend to present to young generations the experience of mutual understanding, cooperation, co-existence in a multicultural environment, given the fact that historical existence on the territory of Ukraine is able to offer such examples. The peculiarity of the historically ethnocultural and socio-political situation is that the geographical space within which Ukrainian territories were formed, located at the intersection of different cultural and historical worlds, was the borderline between different civilizations. Ukrainian historian N. Yakovenko (1997) mentions in this regard that Ukraine “spontaneously synthesized East and West, North and South in its own territory. This motley polyphony, to say the more contrasting disparity between civilizational orbits, which came close to the Ukrainian ethnic space (and redistributed political borders even from time to time), contributed, paradoxically, to the preservation of Ukrainian national unity” (Yakovenko, 1997: 13). The multicultural dimension of the world society is not the property of the civilization progress of mankind in the 21st century. The world was deprived of the outline of monoculture in the days of the existence of ancient empires, which represented a conglomerate of peoples with different worldviews, cultural values, beliefs, lifestyles.

It should be noted that the multicultural experience of the past presents the experience as an irreconcilable attitude towards another, hostile Other, which is often accompanied by bloodshed, and attests to numerous cases of understanding, cooperation, peaceful, tolerant coexistence of different nations and ethnic groups. An example is the historical heritage of the Ukrainian town Kamianets-Podilskyi, which was located at the crossroads of trade routes and was at different historical periods under the authority of foreign states. The cultural and historical heritage of the town organically combined different worldviews, cultural values, and religions. Kamianets’ national composition has always been varied. The town was inhabited by Ukrainians – Armenians, Poles, Jews, Germans, Lithuanians, Bulgarians, Greeks, etc. who created a multinational distinctive culture of the town. In particular, the Armenian migrants who found a second homeland in Podillia land had the opportunity not only to preserve but also to develop and multiply their own culture. In Kamianets, as the main center of Armenian handwriting culture, scribes copied the chronicles, dictionaries, books, prayer books, and the Gospel. Many well-known scholars and public figures came from the Kamianets-Podilskyi Armenian community, among them Doctor of Philosophy and Theology Stepanos Roshka, Armenian historian Johnnes. One of the largest ethnic groups of Kamianets-Podilskyi – the Poles left a prominent mark in the town’s architectural heritage in the form of palace buildings and a number of Catholic temples and monasteries on the western side of the town. The construction of the town and its fortifications at different times were joined by the Germans Jokub Bretfus and Theophil Schomberg, the Dutch by origin King Maximilian Cruiser and Jan de Witte, the English Archibalt Andre de Glayden Glover and others. Multi-nationality of Kamianets-Podilskyi has determined the peculiarities of town governance. The three largest communities of the town: Ukrainian, Armenian and Polish – had their own authorities, a magistrate. Along with the struggle for power and the privileges of self-government in the town, they demonstrated examples of mutual understanding and cooperation in the construction of the town.

It should be mentioned that a positive openness position to other cultural experience, willingness to preserve it in Otherness and difference has a number of hidden dangers and tendencies. The essence of these dangers lies in blind trust in other cultural practices. We are talking about the threat of “dissolution” of one’s own culture in the cultural field of another culture, about the loss of its original, unique character. An encounter with a different, alien culture inevitably changes the horizons of one’s own cultural progress. The threat is that these changes for our own culture are unpredictable and unexpected. At the same time, isolation and closed nature of culture are also dangerous. Lack of interaction with the world of another culture leads to the loss of its viability. Deprived of the opportunity to produce new meanings and forms, it loses its meaning in understanding the problems of the present and designing the future. Successful cultural interaction is possible under the condition of equal dialogue, each of the cultures creates a special subsystem for a dialogue with another one. When cultural adaptation fails, the activity of this exactly subsystem is curtailed, and not of the whole culture system in general. Therefore, culture will not be able to lose its “individual face” provided that its own cultural “core” is preserved.

Does national historical education today use the intellectual and cultural resource offered to it by the experience of previous generations? Is the field culturally oriented in covering the events of the past and understanding the realities of the present? In order to answer these questions, a content analysis of the history textbooks used in the educational process was conducted. The study used 12 textbooks on the history of Ukraine for secondary schools. Of course, the textbooks that have been analyzed are not a complete representation of the whole array of schoolbooks, but they do provide an idea of the widespread concepts of attitudes toward the Other in educational books on Ukrainian history and the nature of their teaching in modern schools. Given the fact that during the years of independence, Ukrainian historians and educators have done considerable work in creating national history textbooks, another task of this study is to consider how the cultural field in teaching Ukrainian history has changed over the last ten years. For comparison, we will use the author’s content analysis of school textbooks on Ukrainian history, which students used in the educational process at the beginning of the 21st century (Hanaba, 2010).

Comparative analysis has shown that modern textbooks are conceptually sustained, lacking stereotyped and unbiased assessments of the racial, ethnic, and cultural nature of the Other. The texts do not meet the double standard textbooks of the early 21st century when similar actions of “One’s Own” and “Other’s” historical figures are evaluated differently. At the same time, the understanding of the Other as an alien is presented in almost all textbooks on Ukrainian history at the beginning of Ukrainian state formation (Hanaba, 2010: 115). As an example in the textbook “History of Ukraine” for students of the 7th-grade authors R. Liakh & N. Temirova (2000) nomadic peoples – Polovtsy, Pechenegs, Hordes of Mongol-Tatars – are portrayed as cruel irreconcilable enemies, conquerors. But the foreign policy of Prince Svyatoslav Ihorovich does not have an “invading colour”, though he also took over foreign lands. The prince “became famous above all for his campaigns, in which he spent almost all his life”, – the authors of the textbook indicate (Liakh & Temirova, 2000, p.120). Similar examples of uncritical, unified treatment of one’s own history, the formation of a stable image of the “evil enemy of a neighbour” were reflected in the textbook by H. K. Shvydko (1997), “History of Ukraine” for 8th grade. Telling about the historical fate of Transcarpathian Ukraine, the author emphasizes only on the aggressive plans of Hungary, without noticing the conquest intentions of the princes of Galicia-Volyn principality: “Hungarian feudal lords conquered the lands of Carpathian Ukraine gradually moreover, they sought to liberate Transcarpathia. During the reign of Lev Danylovych, it was possible to annex part of Transcarpathian Rus to the Galicia-Volyn principality – from Vyshkov to Sharyska Zupa with the cities of Mukacheve and Berehove” (Shvydko, 1997: 94).

New generation textbooks (which are used today at schools) have no clear ideological assessments of a particular historical event or impartial stereotyped attitude towards a particular historical figure. However, the content component of the textbooks only introduces some minor historical facts from other peoples’ lives in Ukraine. Such information is rather illustrative. The textbooks cover mainly the history of ethnic Ukrainians, while the description in the textbooks of the settlement of the territory of Ukraine by people of other ethnicities and cultural traditions, although present, remains sporadic and insufficient. Thus, the textbook “History of Ukraine” for students of the 7th-grade authors are O. V. Hisem and O. O. Martyniuk (2015) only states that “in the south, southeast and east lived Turkic tribes of Bulgarians and Khazars. At the end of the 6th century, the Bulgarian tribes formed in the Azov region their state called Greater Bulgaria. In the middle of the VII century, it was destroyed by the Khazars. Then part of the Bulgarians moved to the middle of the Volga, where they founded a new state – Volha Bulgaria ...” (Hisem & Martyniuk, 2015: 15).

The information devoted to the cultural development of Ukrainian lands in the textbook is accompanied only by an illustration of the achievements of the representatives of the Ukrainian nation. Representatives of other cultures who lived and worked in Ukraine remained virtually out of the authors’ attention. Thus, when considering the theme “Culture of Russia-Ukraine”, the authors do not mention the cultural heritage of other peoples and states, only in the end to the theme they state that “at first the icons were imported from Byzantium and Bulgaria, but later local traditions of icon painting were formed in Russia. Russian masters always adhered to the Byzantine canon (a firmly established rule, which was a model) of icon painting, which was kept by the Orthodox Church, but never copied the Byzantine icons” (Hisem & Martyniuk, 2015: 75). Rather, the exception is the materials of V. S. Vlasov’s (2008) textbook “History of Ukraine” for the 8th grade. Thus, considering the new phenomena inherent in the architecture of the city of the second half of the sixteenth century, the author writes: “urban planning in the Ukrainian lands of the sixteenth century was significantly influenced by the European Renaissance. Particularly vivid Renaissance features are embodied in Western Ukrainian cities. This is not surprising, because the projects of urban development have been commissioned by architects in Europe. Some of the foreign architects found a second homeland in Ukraine and implemented their creative ideas here, combining knowledge acquired in Europe with local traditions” (Vlasov, 2008: 58). Other authors of a textbook on Ukrainian history for 8th grade, I. O. Burneiko et al. (2016), examining the features of cultural and educational life in Ukrainian lands of the sixteenth century, the author states that “the sixteenth century is a time of national and cultural revival. A time when Ukrainians combined Russian customs and traditions of the princely era, the cultural heritage of the peoples who lived near – Tatars, Poles, Germans, Hungarians, Romanians, and others – with the achievements of new Western European ideological and cultural tendencies” (Burneiko et al., 2016, p.58). Ukrainian culture developed on the basis of previous traditions, enriched by the achievements of Western European civilizations. Its openness and ability to borrow became the basis of internal dynamism and development. This Ukrainian history textbook contains specific topics, sections, concepts related to many cultures. The textbook includes topics that present political, socio-economic life, cultural heritage and life practices of peoples who lived on the territory of Ukraine, contributed to the creation of its cultural and historical heritage. In particular, it was reflected in the topics: “Crimean Khanate”, “Russian-Turkish Wars of the XVIII Centuries. Ukraine and the Crimean Khanate” and more.

Almost every textbook on Ukrainian history is dominated by various descriptions of numerous wars, and depictions of conflicts in detail. This primordial “struggle for independence” makes its warriors “defenders” (even in the foreign territory) and others (alien) – “invaders”. For example, the wars started by the Russian princes against foreign lands were fought not for the purpose of their capture, but for the “extension of their jurisdiction” and for the “strengthening of the borders” of the state. As an example, in the textbook on Ukrainian history authored by O. V. Hisem and O. O. Martyniuk (2015), the policy of Prince Volodymyr the Great is presented, first of all, as a policy of new conquests, not as a policy of land development and capturing. “The new prince continued the policy of his predecessors to subjugate East Slavic lands to Kyiv, which were not part of Russia or disappeared in previous years. In 981, Volodymyr conquered the territory of Cherven cities (Volyn, Cherven, Belz, Przemyshl) from the Poles. Russia was annexed to the land in the Western Bug” (Hisem & Martyniuk, 2015: 44).

To sum up, in general, the content analysis of textbooks on Ukrainian history in the coverage of the Other’s status showed that the situation has changed for the better in the last decade. If in the early twentieth century textbooks had mostly negatively coloured vocabulary, which formed stereotypical images of “evil” neighbours and reflected in statements such as “frantic” Tatars, Moscow “enemies”, hordes of Pechenegs, foreign “oppressors” Poles and Hungarians, etc., it is absent in modern textbooks. However, ambiguous historical events involving representatives of different nations and states are not presented alternatively (different views of researchers are not presented, there are no diverse historical documents to help the young people to understand and comprehend them, etc.). Rather, they are presented dryly as a statement of facts, without synonyms and estimates, subjective judgments, that is, as the only correct assessment of the author of the textbook.

The real cultural poly-ethnicity of Ukraine, the role of different ethnic groups in the historical past of the Ukrainian lands that have long inhabited its territory, is revealed too superficially and one-sidedly, by a pattern. Yes, their history in political, economic, cultural and other aspects of development is hardly covered. The educational books provide only specific historical facts or information that simply state the presence of other peoples in the Ukrainian territories, and do not show their contribution to the development of these lands. There are almost no topics or sections that reveal the history and culture of minorities that inhabit modern Ukraine (say, Crimean Tatars or Pontic Greeks). Quite often, these impacts are evaluated negatively (as hostile actions aimed at “denationalization”). As a result, culture under these conditions appears not as a means of understanding or a tool of communication and interaction, but as a weapon in the struggle. “The culture of Ukraine developed in the conditions of fierce struggle of the Ukrainian people against foreign oppressors and played a big role in this struggle” (Turchenko & Moroko, 2005: 49). Other authors boldly use anachronistic terminology and newspaper stylistics to portray “how the loss of statehood influenced the fate of the Ukrainian people” in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: “The loss of statehood had tragic consequences for the Ukrainian people. The death toll was significant. Foreign arrivals destroyed cities and villages. The economic development of the Ukrainian lands was limited. Living conditions have deteriorated and the welfare of the population has decreased. In extremely unfavourable conditions, culture developed: Ukrainian was forbidden, there were no national educational institutions, many chronicles, books, and works of art were lost” (Turchenko & Moroko, 2005: 49).

Thus, the school history of Ukraine is focused almost exclusively on the Ukrainian ethnic community. However, it is very slow, but the concept of history is being formed, where there is a statement of facts that can and should be assessed ambiguously, as well as without any unnecessary decorations for the benefit of Ukrainians depicting the longterm coexistence of ethnic groups on the territory of Ukraine. Textbooks have already been created in which we will not be able to find offensive accusations and silences. And it is possible that for some time the Ukrainian school will teach history on the basis of multiculturalism. The core of the history in the textbook is undoubtedly the Ukrainian ethnic group as the core of national history. At the same time, laying the anthropological and territorial principles at the heart of the story, the textbook should strive for Ukraine to be perceived as space where other ethnic communities whose existence is an integral part of Ukrainian history reside alongside Ukrainians.

Let us look at another issue. It is not possible to integrate the history of national minorities into the Ukrainian historical context in a mechanical way. Expanding the cultural and ethnic component by introducing new topics on the history of other nations and cultures would rather lead to an increase in the volume of the textbook rather than an understanding of the problems of the interrelationships between Our and the Other in Ukrainian history and Ukrainian society. It is not the increase in the volume of the material, but it is a problematic search statement that is effective in the didactic-methodical component. Relevant in overcoming the false image of historical education is the development of the ability to think critically about historical facts, to give them their own judgment. The ability to critically rethink the past will help to transform learning subjects from manipulative consumers of information resources into a person who consciously defends his or her own position. Critically reflecting the past is the ability to look at a particular historical position from different angles. Important is the extent to which historical education instils the skills of independent critical thinking. The ability to critically process the received information, to be “critically skeptical”, will be facilitated by the use in the textbooks of various, as a rule, alternative, conflicting historical sources.

Y. Vella (2020) states that historical material that lacks interpretation is a matter of concern because history is not the absolute truth for us. The most that can be hoped for is a historian’s reliable interpretation of historical issues. Taking this position into account, the history teaching should avoid clear undeniable positivist knowledge with the canon of certain factual information, as it can cause a lot of prejudice. At the same time, the teaching of history as a constructive process with many interpretations can be relevant for the promotion of human values, a tool for maintaining peace, reconciliation and conflict resolution. The scholar draws attention to another circumstance. Interpretation, comprehension of historical material, in her opinion, will be effective if modern innovative teaching methods are used (Vella, 2020).

The conducted content analysis has shown that many textbooks have improved the selection of questions and tasks that are not aimed at the mechanical rendering of text, but to systematize, analyze, evaluate information, solve problem situations, creative tasks, and more. The range of visual sources involved has expanded significantly, including a variety of drawings, cartoons, paintings, photos, films and more. But despite these undoubtedly positive changes, the didactic and methodological component of the textbooks is deprived of a lot of perspectives and alternatives in the coverage of events, it does not encourage students to dialogue with the authors of the textbook. As an example, in the textbook History of Ukraine authored by O. V. Hisem and O. O. Martyniuk (2015), there is a separate practical lesson devoted to the ethnic composition of the population of Ukraine. Students are encouraged to use the additional literature and Internet resources to answer the following questions: What ethnic groups lived in Ukrainian lands? What are the historical prerequisites for their resettlement in Ukraine? Which states were ethnic Ukrainian lands at the end of the 15th century? Compare the policies of Lithuanian Olgerd, Vytautas, Svidrigail regarding Ukrainian lands? (Hisem & Martyniuk, 2015: 226). Thus, the tasks of the practical lesson involve the reproductive assimilation of a certain set of historical facts, the ability to collate, analyze, summarize them, and in no way critically comprehend and give their own assessment of historical events.

It should be noted that the problematic situation is the trigger mechanism of critical thinking. It is evidence of a difficult choice situation that requires careful consideration and evaluation. Problematic learning cultivates questioning, reflexiveness of search, creative intentions. At the same time, mastering knowledge without solving non-trivial problems becomes ordinary schooling: jagged and tell. On the contrary, the problematic search organization of the educational process transforms the classroom into a community of researchers, which is not a formal entity that functions by order. In such a community, educational engagement of all participants to learn how to listen and hear one another, to treat one another with respect and tolerance. According to M. Lipman (2003), for the scholars’ community it is important to accumulate general experience. The point is that everyone is ready to share their own experience and learn from the experience of others. Such interaction involves the application of rationality, which is controlled by a critical and creative argument. Attempts at persuasion, mutual trust and goodwill are significant (Lipman, 2003). It is clear that in the scholar community there is a teaching of peace, reduced misunderstanding, hostility and self-destruction of the human in a person. The scholars believe that members of such a community do not have a position that should be defended, because the process of joint search is correlated with joy and mutual satisfaction (Lipman & Sharp, 1985).

Cooperation of participants of educational interaction on the creation of knowledge, the discovery of their new properties and characteristics in solving practical problems significantly influences their moral and value world, makes education truly person-oriented. In the classroom, teachers and students work as a special community of thinkers. Each year is different from the previous ones, not only because we use a new textbook or method, but also because the students come to us every year in a classroom with different life experiences and thoughts. In order to get the most out of class life, students and teachers should be informed of the resources that are in this class community. So the class is a great lab where you can learn these skills. A critical thinking person presents evidence or case studies in accordance with accepted standards or questions those standards by making compelling arguments. An essential characteristic of critical thinking is the recognition that it is aimed at formulating independent judgments and is not based on rigid algorithms and stereotypes. Accordingly, a person uses critical thinking as a method of self-correction of their’s own judgments in order to correct or improve them. By criticizing or justifying certain considerations, the person uses the criteria he or she appeals to, which is based on critical thinking. A critically-minded person is required to be sensitive to context, that is, to test the criteria for appropriateness and the ability to change in each case. In the process of critical thinking, it allows other alternatives and arguments, if they are appropriate to the situation, take into account the dialogical nature of that thinking. Researcher H. E. Knudsen (2020) considers dialogue practices to be a key pedagogical tool in teaching history. She thinks teaching history as a communicative process allows to outline productive pedagogical strategies for the relationship between the teacher and the class on the one hand and to teach history as a dialogue between epochs, between cultures, covered by different scientific concepts and assessments of past life, on the other hand (Knudsen, 2020).

Therefore, it becomes important to reflect, to generate new thoughts and ideas, taking into account the world of others, rather than opposing and denying it. The other in the dialogue interacts with the right and the opportunity to be different. Reflection develops fully only on the basis of the personal subjective experience of the evaluative activity. The role of the teacher changes significantly. From a mentor and oracle of truth, he is transformed into a seeker and co-creator of knowledge in a research society. The educator coordinates and organizes students’ activities, learning and exploring the world with them. An example of such interaction is the method of utopia proposed by Socrates in his time.

Thus, changing the emphasis in the content of the educational material, introducing into the system of teaching methods of critical thinking aims to teach participants of educational interaction to formulate independent judgments and thoughts, to recognize and understand the subjective nature of any interpretation of the historical phenomenon, will promote moral and ethical education. Achieving a tolerant vision of the events of the past can be realized on the basis of “humanization” of the content and methods of historical cognition, harmonization of the gnostic and axiological aspects of historical education and will contribute to the formation in the subjects of pedagogical interaction understanding of “spirit of the era”, the need to take into account the values and values of different groups of people, nations. Students should “feel” in another person’s place and at another time. Therefore, the historical process is not learned from the outside by the application of scientific categories and schemes, but from the inside, through man, through the penetration into the sensual world of the era and everyday life. Historical education focuses not so much on the external translation of the experience of previous generations, but on the inner world of the existences of both the person of the past and the contemporary of educational interaction. In fact, in this way, one learns not only to respect the world of other values and priorities but also to realize the need to cultivate one’s own system of values.

The thoughts outlined above are relevant and productive in the context of the formation of a new universal spiritual community, free from divisive patterns and stereotypes capable of producing new principles of the world organization. The unity of cultures in the modern world can occur under the condition of “unity in all diversity”, which implies an equal vector orientation: both to the “unity” of cultures and to foster the cultural diversity of the world at the same time. A world devoid of cultural priorities in the development of certain cultures and the neglect of the capabilities and characteristics of others will deprive humankind of hostility and intransigence, will acquire the contours of a pluralistic, multicultural image, as it is “woven out” from the discourse of different valued civilizational assets. At the heart of integration and integration processes is the idea of understanding the modern world as an “ensemble of cultural uniqueness and difference” that intersects, interacts, and develops in the communicative-dialog space.

In the past, there is a powerful potential that can fulfil both creative and destructive role. History can be both a matter of controversy and a matter of philosophical and cultural reflection on the mutual influence of cultural heritage. On the whole, the experience of the past is the most important source of healing the moral atmosphere, the spiritual upliftment of the nation, the key to the formation of a new psychological climate in society, the solution of a number of internal problems, etc. The historical past will also promote the development of a planetary dialogue. Under these conditions, integration processes are understood not only as a mechanism of functioning of civilization but also as a principle of culture. Self-sufficiency and openness of a productive, equal dialogue with other cultures, dynamic synthesis of all its components in a multi-vector internal hierarchy will be able to ensure the viability of a separate national culture.

This position is understood not only as the ability to understand the person of the past, his inner world, to empathized him, but also to outline the ability of the modern man to understand himself, to cultivate feelings and conscience of duty and responsibility for his own destiny, as well as for the fate of all humanity. In this context, historical science and the educational realm of history receive a somewhat different aspect, devoid of alienation and abstractness of historical knowledge, focused on the search, formation of ideological orientations of the modern man, his ability to a constructive, prudent solution of social contradictions, the willingness of publicity mutual understanding.

Applying an intersubjective approach to the knowledge of the past in the practice of historical education will affect the change in the orientations and content of the educational activity. The study of history will be directed not so much at acquaintance of students, with a certain, well-defined “sum of knowledge”, but will concentrate on forming in them a new world view, the ability to “immerse” the thoughts, anxieties and pleasures of people of a certain age, together with them to make a moral choice. The orientation of historical education to the axiological aspects of cognition makes the experience of past epochs emotionally and spiritually close and clear to participants in educational interaction. The subject of research is human activity in all its manifestations, where human actions and thoughts are closely linked to emotions and beliefs. This allows students to see the past from the inside, to look at the historical era through the eyes of the average person. History emerges as the world of culture in its broadest sense and determines the cultural and personal development of the subjects of educational interaction. Within the educational process, there is a transition from a scientific, abstract level to a concrete, vital, personal understanding of history. Thus, in this way, students learn not only to respect the world of other values and priorities, but also to realize the need to cultivate a personal system of value orientations, form their worldview, cultivate responsibility for their actions. The historical educational process focuses not so much on the external translation of the experience of previous generations but on the inner world of the existences of both the person of the past and the modern participant of educational interaction.

In this perspective the views of S. R. E. Klein (2010) are interesting. In his research, he analyzes the public debate as for the teaching of history in the Netherlands. It outlines two competing visions. The first vision sees the main mission of historical education in student’s learning of factual material and obtaining knowledge of chronology. The second one, on the contrary, focuses on the axiological aspect of historical education, i.e. on the priority of values that history nurtures in a person and the community. The scholar prefers the educational potential of historical education. He confirms his views with the opinions of teachers who work in multicultural student communities. He believes that taking into account the axiological potential of historical education will overcome many prejudices about the perception of another culture, another worldview or a way of life, and thus it is promising for the democracy and tolerance development (Klein, 2010). The value approach follows from the very nature of human existence and is a measure of social well-being. Obviously, the focus of historical education should be concentrated on fostering democratic values that will consolidate and develop the ideas of tolerance, equality before the law, equality of opportunity, will deprive the society of stereotypes and prejudices against the Other. And vice versa, neglect of these attitudes can lead to the education of a cynical and vulnerable generation that can become potential carriers of extremist ideas, can contribute to the revival of xenophobia, racism, anti-Semitism, etc. Thus, according to A. Perotti (1994), the spread of democracy and tolerance includes an understanding of the past as the coexistence of different cultures, religions, worldviews, etc. This understanding is particularly sensitive to differences and demonstrates tolerance, respect and recognition of the Other’s right to be different (Perotti, 1994). The didactic component of teaching history is based on the development of the ability to generalize, explain and critically compare historical facts, evaluate different points of view on historical events, understand that some sources may be biased. F. Alvn (2017) draws attention to the fact that these cognitive abilities should be developed by historical education. According to the scholar, they will allow pupils / students to interpret historical events independently, to form their own system of values and beliefs, to acquire axiological competence (Alvn, 2017).

Separation and realization in the educational sphere of “human content” of history, axiological nature of the historical fact, events, phenomena, which are intended to form a tolerant vision of historical existence, will contribute to the reconciliation of citizens with their own history, which will subsequently lead to harmonization and mutual acceptance of modern Ukrainian society. The appeal of education as a social institution to the heritage of the past aims to promote the integrity and renewal of society by forming a thinking creative personality capable of counteracting confrontation and alienation, ready to foster in society a germ of tolerance and understanding. The field of historical education emerges as the process of mastering and comprehending the tendencies of the development of historical reality, the formation of social self-identity and certain social qualities, attraction to the system of values, norms and relations of society. Within this model, knowledge loses its declarative and unified character and is seen as a means of personal transformation.

The reorientation of the knowledge component in the context of the intersubjective orientation of historical education changes the purpose of the educational book in the acquisition of knowledge. Instead of traditional textbooks and manuals, demonstrating the unmistakable set of “ready truths”, focused on reproduction of educational material by students and impose an unpopular authorial position in explaining the events of the past, comes a new generation of textbooks, marked polyphony, material stimulate searches, reflections, mediated dialogue with the authors of the publication and reflect the outlook of the youth of the 21st century, contribute to the formation of their personality’s determinants, namely productive capacity for information analysis, autonomy and independence of thought, form their own opinions and beliefs. The learning process is not about simply accumulating the facts that determine the “discovery” of the truth, but about the students’ ability to understand and explain historical interpretations, to give them an appreciation. They need to be aware that over time, evaluations of the events of the past may change, as more information emerges, the criteria for its selection can be reviewed, world outlook changes in public consciousness, politics, morals, etc. The more diverse information student receives about the phenomenon, the more he understands the complex, ambiguous, polyphonic nature of the historical process, the more often he will need to find his own way of solving the problem. Guidelines in this approach are universal values, the ability to constructively deal with conflicting situations, to overcome judgments and prejudices in history, and to critically reflect on the information in general. Critical analysis of the heritage of the past involves the assessment of the complexity of the problem (rejection of the seemingly simple approach in “black and white” concepts); arguments of different persons and groups involved in the process of different historical theories; distinguishing between relevance and inconsistency of information; identification of reliable sources of information; recognition of unreliability, limited and incomplete information; assessing the views, biases of the people who provided this information; selection of similar and different among various evidence of a problem, processing of conflicting evidence or evidence of what has happened. History offers and obliges a person to make a choice from a whole set of possibilities, options, alternatives.

Conclusions

The reason for the introduction of intersubjective guidelines in historical education is the recognition of pluralism, the introduction of a multi-perspective approach that will allow not only to consider historical events deeply and comprehensively, overcome Manichaean approaches to the interpretation of the past, get rid of falsifications and distortions in explaining the historical process but also to recognize the fact that several forms of “truth” may exist in comprehending the picture of historical being. An appeal to the methodology of history, which presents different views, ideas, positions, “opens the eyes” to the existence of such points of view, which may be inconvenient and with which the majority may disagree, but which nevertheless must be recognized. We should state that the recognition of ideological pluralism in overcoming the one-sided interpretation of past events, exposing ideologies and prejudices has transformed into a controversial situation in the field of education. On the one hand, pluralism determines the dialogue and polyphony of the educational process, and on the other hand, it complicates the translation of knowledge, relativizes the process of acquiring them. Achieving a balance both in modeling the historical process and in constructing the theory of historical cognition is possible provided that the concepts not only compete with others, but also take into account the results of their scientific research, thereby expanding the horizons of their scientific experience.

Understanding, not condemnation will help to avoid neglectful, biased attitude to historical events, to produce social hearing in the temporal space, will allow looking at history “from the inside”, from the worldviews of direct participants of certain events that lived in a certain historical era. Understanding the historical existence of past eras does not mean that it is devoid of, removed from the effects of the present. Looking to the past as a mirror, one not only recognizes the other world but also compares it with its cultural and value world, which causes constant mutual influences, a roll call of historical epochs and is based on openness, reciprocity, unity. In the plane of an intersubjective approach, historical education involves the consideration of the mutual influence of the past and the present as a dialogue of differences that present their semantic depths, complement each other, enrich one another, rather than contrast them as “alien” and “hostile”. Understanding leads to the refutation of existing and the creation of new frontiers of knowledge, it defines the subjects of cognition beyond the boundaries of objectively constructed, social, cultural, political ideas. According to H. A. Giroux (1991), these subjects of cognition are transgressors for the knowledge of the Other in its own sense. The process of cognition involves the creation of a “border zone”, where different cultural resources form new identities (Giroux, 1991). In his project, such transgressive thinking appeals to the renewal of those forms of knowledge that characterize the alternative and oppositional Others, contributing to the creation of the image of modern man as “civilized human”. The cultural interaction of different types of historical cultures is that by borrowing any values of “alien” culture, culture inevitably transforms “alien” into “one’own” without losing its originality. By ceasing to produce new opportunities and perspectives for understanding human existence, the cultural and historical worlds and practices of the past perish, they lose their meaning in understanding the problems of the present and designing the future.

The past has enormous potential that can be creative in further social development. Looking at the historical process from the standpoint of the immediate participants, rethinking it in terms of human values will become the basis for the formation of a tolerant democratic society. Such a society is able not only to generate new ideas but also to nurture the qualities that the Ukrainian people need in its development. Understanding the historical process from the point of view of intersubjective communications will contribute to the formation of the inclination of the modern person to cultural-ideological tolerance, tolerance and dialogue with the Other, dialogical tolerance, the realization that the Other also has the right to make mistakes or to be different in the ability to see the world in all its diversity and unity.

REFERENCES

Koselleck, R. (2003). Gibt es eine Beschleunigung der Geschichte? In Ders.: Zeitschichten. Studien zur Historik (pp.150 – 176), Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

Ulusoy, K. (2017). Target values in the history course curriculla during the republican period. Journal of Education and Learning, 6 (1), 283 – 293. URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jel.v6n1p283

Hanaba, S., Miroshnichenko, V., Shumovetska, S., Makohonchuk, N., Halimov, A. & Bloshchynskyi, I. (2019). Strategies for Treating the Other in the Methodological Focus of Intersubjectivity. Postmodern Openings, 10(4), 168 – 181. doi:10.18662/po/101.

Husserl, E. (1998). Kartezianskiye Razmyshleniye [Cartesian Meditations]. (Trans. from German by D. V. Skliadnev). SPb: Nauka; Yuventa.

Sartre, J.-P. (1989). Yekzistentsializm – eto gumanizm [Existentialism is a Humanism]. Trans. from French by A. A. Sanin. Twilight of the Gods. In Yakovlev, A. A. (ed.), (pp.319 – 344). Moscow: Politizdat.

Baudrillard, J. (2000). Prizrachnost Zla [The Phantom of Evil]. Trans. from French by L. Lyubarskaya, Ye. Markovskaya. Moscow: Dobrosvet.

Buber, M. (2004). I and Thou. Trans. Ronald Gregor Smith. London and New York: Continuum.

Waldenfels, B. (2004). Topohrafiia Chuzhoho: Studii do Fenomenolohii Chuzhoho [Topography of the Alien: Studies on the Phenomenology of the Alien]. Trans. from German by V. I. Kebuladze. Kyiv: PPS.

Hanaba, S. (2010). Istorychna Osvita u Metodolohichnomu Fokusi Intersubiektyvnosti : Monohrafiia [Historical Education in the Methodological Focus of Intersubjectivity: a Monograph]. Kamianets-Podilskyi: KPNU imeni Ivana Ohiienka.

Alvn, F. (2017). Marking democrats while developing their historical consciousness: A complex task. Historical Encounters Journal, 4(1), 52 – 67. Retrieved from: http://hej.hermes-history.net.

Klein, S. R. E. (2010). Teaching History in the Netherlands: Teachers’ Experiences of a Plurality of Perspectives. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto Curriculum Inquiry, 40:5, 614 – 634. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-873X.2010.00514.x.

Knudsen, H. E. (2020). History teaching as a designed meaning-making process: Teacher facilitation of student-subject relationships. History Education Research Journal, 17(1), pp.36 – 50. DOI: https://doi. org/10.18546/HERJ.17.1.04.

Vella, Y. (2020). Teaching bias in history lessons: An example using Maltese history. History Education Research Journal, 17 (1), 99 – 113. DOI https://doi.org/10.18546/ HERJ.17.1.08.

Yakovenko, N. (1997). Narys Istorii. Z Naidavnishyh Chasiv do Kintsia XVIII Stolittia [Essay on History. From Ancient Times to the End of the XVIII Century]. Kyiv: Heneza.

Liakh, R. & Temirova, N. (2000). Istoriia Ukrainy. Z Naidavnishykh Chasiv do XV Stolittia: Pidruchnyk dlia 7 Klasu Zahalnoosvitnih Navchalnyh Zakladiv [History of Ukraine. From Ancient Times to the XV Century: Textbook for 7th Grade of Secondary School]. Kyiv: Heneza.

Shvydko, H. K. (1997). Istoriia Ukrainy. XVI – XVIII Stolittia. Pidruchnyk dlia 8 Klasu Serednoi Shkoly [History of Ukraine. The XVI – XVIII Centuries. Textbook for 8th Grade of Secondary School]. Kyiv: Heneza.

Hisem, O. V. & Martyniuk, O. O. (2015). Istoriia Ukrainy: Pidruchnyk dlia 7 Klasu [History of Ukraine: a Textbook for 7th Grade]. Kharkiv: Ranok.

Vlasov, V. S. (2008). Istoriia Ukrainy: Pidruchnyk dlia 8 Klasu Zahalnoosvitnih Navchalnyh Zakladiv [History of Ukraine: a Textbook for the 8th Grade of Secondary School]. In Mytsyk, Yu. A. (ed.). Kyiv: Heneza.

Burneiko, I. O., Naumchuk, O. V., Kryzhanovska M. Ye. & Shtanko, O. F. (2016). Istoriia Ukrainy: Pidruchnyk Dlia 8 Klasu Zahalnoosvitnikh Navchalnykh Zakladiv [History of Ukraine: a Textbook for the 8th Grade of Secondary School]. Ternopil: Aston.

Turchenko, F.H. & Moroko, V. M. (2005). Istoriia Ukrainy. Druha polovyna XVIII – pochatok XX stolittia: pidruchnyk dlia IX klasu zahalnoosvitnoho navchalnoho zakladu [History of Ukraine. The Second Half of the XVIII – Beginning of the XX Century: a Textbook for the 9th Grade of Secondary School]. Kyiv: Heneza.

Lipman, M. (2003). Thinking in Education. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lipman, M. & Sharp, A. M. (1985). Ethical Inquiry: Instructional Manual to Accompany Lisa. 2nd. ed. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Perotti, A. (1994). The Case for Intercultural Education. Strasbourg, France: Council of Europe Press.

Giroux, H. A. (1991). Border Pedagogy and the Politics of Postmodernism. Social Text, 28, 51 – 67. DOI: 10.2307/466376.