TWO IMAGES OF MAKARENKO'S MAIN OPPONENT: VARIABILITY OF VALENTINA DUCHEN'S LIFE PATH

Abstract

The article is devoted to the coverage of the eventful life path of A. Makarenko’s main ideological opponent – an active revolutionary, a well-known figure in national education, author of numerous pedagogical publications Valentina Diushen.The nature of V. Diushen's social origin and education, details of her revolutionary and educational-managerial activity, publishing activity are revealed, little-known biographical information about her family members is presented: the first husband – Borys Diushen, the second husband – Volodymyr Aussem, son – Ihor Diushen. The chronology of all known controversial moments of professional dialogue of V. Diushen and A. Makarenko is presented in detail. For the first time in the Makarenko literature, documentary evidence of A. Makarenko's reports on V. Duchen's affiliation with the Trotskyi opposition is presented.The set of found materials presents Valentina Diushen as a large-scale personality of a highly professional, active, able-bodied, and principled figure in the history of national education. However, it is the ambiguity, the contradiction of this figure that determines its opposed assessments by contemporaries.The conflict between Makarenko and Diushen must be viewed in two planes, the objective and the subjective. On the one hand, the tension of their professional relations as representatives of innovative pedagogy is evidence of the struggle that always accompanies the assertion of any new doctrine. On the other hand, both of these figures were extremely bright, original figures and, at the same time, extremely ambitious personalities. At the same time, the ambition and irresistibility of V. Diushen towards the self-confident but non-partisan head of the provincial institution were dictated by its administrative status, membership in the political elite, and metropolitan education and social background.So far, it is difficult to explain whether Diushen's opposition in any way influenced her pedagogical views, but it should be noted that A. Makarenko in his criticism of her makes a special emphasis on this circumstance.