On the Formation of the Primary Student Collective

V. I. Kunchenko

(Presented by the scientific seminar of the Department of Scientific Communism)

A student’s formation takes place within the higher-education collective. According to A. S. Makarenko, “there is no direct transition from the whole collective to the individual; there is only a transition through the mediation of the primary collective”¹. In a higher educational institution, such a primary collective is the academic group, since it is precisely within it that the closest contacts are formed in the direction of the main activity: business, ideological, ethical, everyday, and other ties. Therefore, the study of the collective of a student group and of its development is of very great importance for understanding the educational influence exerted on the individual.

In the literature, considerable attention has been devoted to questions of the socialist collective. But most researchers limit themselves to considering either the production collective or the school collective. Student collectives, however, have begun to be studied comparatively recently. The literature contains works that examine the structure and functions of the student collective, its internal interrelations, and its specific character². But they do not exhaust all the problems, and the collective of the student group requires further study.

The Academic Group as a Variety of the Socialist Collective

The methodology in studies of the collective consists of the ideas of the founders of Marxism on the necessity of collective activity by people, on the fact that before socialism there can exist only a “surrogate of collectivity,” that genuine collectivism is born in a society free from exploitation and antagonisms³, as well as the theory of the socialist collective in the works of A. S. Makarenko.

A. S. Makarenko identified the qualities inherent in the socialist collective: “A. The collective unites people not only in a common goal and in common labor, but also in the common organization of this labor... B. The collective is a part of Soviet society, organically connected with other collectives... C. The collective is a social organism; consequently, it possesses organs of administration and coordination, authorized first and foremost to represent the interests of the collective and of society...”⁴.

The features of a collective generally recognized by researchers are the presence, in a group of people, of a common goal, joint socially useful activity, and a definite organization that provides for the close interconnection of all members. These features are also inherent in the student group.

The academic group is a part of the higher-education collective; therefore its goal is a projection of the central goal of the higher educational institution. Our society places upon the higher educational institution the objective demand of ensuring production with highly qualified cadres of comprehensively developed specialists. Hence the higher educational institution faces an integral task: to form a specialist and a comprehensively developed personality capable of occupying a definite place in production and in society. This goal is realized by the entire higher-education collective. A large burden in solving it falls upon the collective of the student group, since it is precisely within it that the student’s principal activity takes place.

The realization of the collective’s goal is achieved through solving concrete tasks that are defined in the curriculum and in the program of upbringing⁵. The programs reflect immediate tasks (for a semester, a year), more remote ones (for the entire period of study), and final, ultimate tasks, so that the student sees the prospects of his activity as a whole. A. S. Makarenko asserted that the presence in a collective of near, middle, and distant prospects is a stimulus for its activity⁶. “To educate a person means to educate in him prospective paths”⁷, he noted.

It is advisable that, in the programs, the prospects and tasks of individual personalities and of the collective as a whole be harmoniously combined. This will allow each personality to feel his or her significance in the common cause.

The next characteristic of a collective is the presence within it of joint socially useful activity. The dominant direction in the activity of a student collective is the acquisition of knowledge and skills in the future specialty. Moreover, this socially useful activity is carried out jointly.

joint attendance at lectures, the conducting of laboratory work, participation in seminar sessions, etc. But the main emphasis in student activity, the main efforts in it, are connected “with independent work”^8). This is what distinguishes a student collective from those production collectives in which all members of the collective are linked by the labor process.

The specificity of the activity of the student collective is determined also by the peculiarities of the student’s labor. In the educational process the student chiefly assimilates knowledge, preparing himself for future production activity, i.e., temporarily he is a consumer, not a producer. But the enormous expenditure of intellectual powers and energy required by his activity, its goal-directedness and social significance make it possible to regard it as one of the forms of mental labor^9). Moreover, in part the student is also a producer of social values, material and spiritual goods, by participating in production practice, in contract work, working in student design bureaus, in student scientific societies, in construction brigades, and also in production in order to obtain additional earnings (although this activity is not the main one for the student, but only a means for achieving the goal—the acquisition of knowledge and skills in his future specialty). The indicated features single out the student collective among educational collectives as occupying a special place.

The joint performance of one or another activity does not yet indicate that the given association of people is a collective. Collective activity is distinguished by a common responsibility for the cause, by duty to society. In addition, it goes beyond the bounds of business relations and extends to other spheres of life. “A collective,” wrote N. K. Krupskaya, “is a group united by common experiences, common interests, common work, common views, and friendship”^10).

Common interests, views, and friendship arise in joint labor, but they are strengthened only when there are comprehensive contacts. Among students, joint activity extends not only to the sphere of study. A local study conducted by us at Tomsk Polytechnic Institute in three groups of the Heat and Power Engineering Faculty, in three groups of the Electric Power Engineering Faculty in 1968, in four groups of the Mechanical Engineering Faculty and one group of the Electrophysics Faculty in 1969, showed that communication in the collective of a student group proceeds in various directions (on questions of study, in the political and aesthetic spheres, on personal questions, in the sphere of scientific activity, etc.). The highest level of communication in most groups falls on the joint spending of leisure time in various forms (see Table 1); in second place is communication on questions of study, then on political questions, in the aesthetic sphere, etc.

^8) G. I. Petrova, The Student Collective, Its Structural and Functional Connections. Materials of the Conference of Young Scholars in the Social Sciences Dedicated to the 100th Anniversary of the Birth of V. I. Lenin, issue 2, p. 100. Tomsk, 1969.

^9) I. S. Kolysov. “The Educational Labor of Students in the Light of Value Relations.” Izvestiya TPI, vol. 220, pp. 20–21, Tomsk, 1970.

^10) On the Paths to the New School. 1928. No. 12, p. 12. (Quoted from E. I. Rudneva, The Pedagogical System of N. K. Krupskaya, p. 294. Moscow State University Press, 1968).

Table 1

1 — coefficient of communication on matters of study, 2 — on political questions, 3 — on aesthetic questions, 4 — on personal questions, 5 — on spending leisure time together in various forms, 6 — coefficient of group activity¹¹).

Rostov sociologists, in their study, found that students attach great importance to “group life,” to collective forms of spending free time¹².

Extensive communication in all spheres of life in the student collective, and especially collective leisure, is explained by two factors: the particular features of students’ everyday life (living together in a dormitory) and its composition. Members of a student collective find it interesting to communicate with one another, since they are people of the same education, the same worldview, and, for the most part, the same age (from 18 to 22), for whom an increased interest in communicating with peers is characteristic. The presence of comprehensive contacts in a student collective, and a high level of communication within it, when education is properly organized, can contribute to the development of a high degree of cohesion in it.

A necessary feature of a collective, as noted above, is also the presence of a definite organizational structure. The specificity of the student primary collective may be said to consist in the fact that it is a self-governing collective whose bodies operate on a voluntary basis. The structure of a student group is characterized by the presence of two components: the organizing component and the subordinate component. The organizing component is the subject of management in the collective. It includes three units: the group monitor, appointed by the dean’s office; the Komsomol organizer, elected by the Komsomol members of the collective; and the trade-union organizer, elected by its trade-union organization. This so-called managerial triangle performs organizing functions in the collective. All the remaining members of the collective belong to the subordinate component, to the object of management. The object and subject of management in a student group are closely connected with one another by functional dependence, since in their joint activity they have a common goal.

On the basis of the analyzed features and traits

¹¹) The coefficient of communication on a given question is a value obtained by the formula \(\frac{B_p}{B_0}\), where \(B_p\) is the number of real choices made by students of one another for communication on the given question, and \(B_0\) is the optimal number of choices corresponding to the participation of all members of the group in communication. The coefficient of group activity is the average value of the coefficient of communication over all recorded directions present in the collective.

¹²) B. Rubin, Yu. Kolesnikov. The Student Through the Eyes of a Sociologist, p. 153, Rostov, 1968.

of a student group one may conclude that it is a variety of socialist collective, a primary student collective, having its own specific features.

The Process of Formation of the Primary Student Collective

The most essential and most complex thing for a collective is its formation. It may proceed in different ways, depending on the composition of the collective, the conditions in which it is formed and functions, its internal structure, relations, jointly solved tasks, and also on the demands placed upon it by society. In functioning, a collective develops in itself new qualities, the dominant one among which, in our view, is cohesion.

This quality is an expression of group activity on the basis of a commonality of interests and goals, as well as of joint socially useful activity. The basic principle of cohesion is comradely mutual assistance, readiness to take upon oneself the difficulties of another member of the collective. An indicator of cohesion is the absence of conflicts based on a sharp opposition between collective and individual interests. In a cohesive collective every personality has freed itself from individualism. It does not oppose its interests to the interests of the collective, but recognizes them as its own. The personality in a cohesive collective has a highly developed sense of collectivism¹³).

Collectivism, as a trait of every personality, and the cohesion of the collective develop simultaneously. Conventionally, one may distinguish four stages in the formation of cohesion in a student collective. The basis for periodization may be A. S. Makarenko’s elaboration of the stages in the development of demand and discipline in a collective, because cohesion, the unity of the collective, is the highest indicator of discipline. He connected the creation of discipline with demands made on the collective and on the personality¹⁴). A. S. Makarenko’s methodology was used by T. E. Konnikova for considering the development of a school collective¹⁵). But a student collective has its own developmental features.

How, then, is the primary student collective formed from the point of view of the development of cohesion within it?

An academic group is formed from students who have chosen a particular specialty, with account taken of the passing score they received in competitive examinations. From disparate personalities it is necessary to create an aggregate—a collective. The duration of the formation of cohesion in it depends in many respects on the extent to which collectivism is developed among its individual members. When an academic group is formed, this quality is present to varying degrees in all students, since all of them have already belonged to various collectives. At the moment this given collective is formed, this personal quality appears abstractly (without relation to some particular collective) as an indicator of the level of socialization of the personality and as a potential possibility for the development of a sense of collectivism toward a concrete—

In our view, cohesion and collectivism have one and the same nature. The first concept is used with respect to the collective, the second—with respect to the personality.

¹⁴) A. S. Makarenko, vol. 5, pp. 133–163, 517.
¹⁵) Pedagogy. A Course of Lectures, ed. by G. I. Shchukina, E. Ya. Golant, K. D. Radina. LGPI, lecture 14, p. 361, 1966.

to a new collective. Consequently, the more developed the collectivism is among the personalities included in the new collective, the less time will be required for their adaptation within it, for the cohesion of the collective, and for the formation of the socio-psychological and moral atmosphere characteristic of a developed collective.

From the moment a collective is formed, a variety of forms of communication arises within it. Entering into them, the personality assimilates new forms of social behavior and brings in his or her own, already known from communication in another collective. Habits of collective and individual activity appear and become consolidated. Therefore the development of each personality promotes the development of the collective, just as the development of the collective is the development of each personality. Here the action of the general sociological law of the unity of part and whole is manifested.

The first stage in the formation of a student collective is the most responsible and complex. The collective is being introduced to its main task; its members are assimilating new social roles; the first distribution of structural roles, “adjustment,” adaptation, and the emergence of interrelations and relationships take place. The active group has not yet taken shape; norms of group behavior have not yet been worked out; the discipline and regime of the higher educational institution have not been assimilated. Therefore guidance of the collective on the part of the faculty is necessary. It is carried out in the form of curatorship.

The first stage of the development of the collective in a student group is the establishment of the most general group norms of behavior with respect to general discipline. At this stage, individuals begin to emerge who are especially receptive to the interests of the new collective. These are probably those who adapt more easily to new conditions and in whom the abstract sense of collectivism is developed to a greater degree. They should become the “core of the collective”⁸.

A major influence on accelerating the development of this stage may be exerted by the specialized department, helping to form the professional orientation of students⁹, and by the entire collective of the higher educational institution, drawing first-year students into internal public life.

At the second stage, an active group is formed. It has already developed a sense of responsibility and pride in the affairs of the collective; it keenly experiences common failures and conflicts, and therefore begins to show exactingness toward all members of the collective. The main activity in organizing the collective falls on the shoulders of the active group. The curator influences the collective already indirectly. For him, in this period it is important to direct the actions of the active group, and also to promote the formation in the active group of the necessary qualities: principledness, persistence, and devotion to the common cause.

At this stage there is already a conscious formation of self-government bodies. In some groups this occurs in the first year, in others only in the second. This depends on many factors: on the personalities entering the collective, on the conditions in which the group begins to work, and also on the curator. Thus, at the second stage there is a secondary distribution of structural roles and a strengthening of the structure of the collective as a whole. Collectivism as a concrete feeling is not yet inherent in all members of the collective, but only in the active group. Therefore cohesion is still very weak.

The third stage is the strengthening of collectivity throughout the entire collective—

collective. A large number of interrelations appear: common interests, common evaluations of and approaches to facts and actions. At this stage the psychology of the collective, a common opinion and norms of behavior are formed; common ideals and traditions appear. If at the second stage the active group presents certain demands to the collective, then at the third stage, as A. S. Makarenko noted¹⁰, the collective presents its demands to individual persons. At this level of development the student collective can already act independently, without constant guidance on the part of the curator.

The improvement of the collective is possible with the active participation and concern of each individual in its affairs, in its development and self-development. Consequently, the next level of the student collective may be considered such a development in which the general norms have already become so firmly established in it that they become a guide in the behavior of each individual. This is possible in the case when, in the individual consciousness, collectivity and individuality are reflected as a necessary dialectical unity. The individual realizes his place and role in the collective. The unity of the collective and the individual is manifested most fully.

K. Marx and F. Engels assumed that “only when man has recognized and organized his ‘own powers’ as social powers and consequently no longer separates social power from himself in the form of political power—only then will human emancipation be accomplished”¹¹.

Thus, at the fourth stage of the development of the collective the individual is most free. It is not necessary to apply any special measures to him, since he himself makes demands of himself. The collective at this level of development is distinguished by the greatest cohesion. It is manifested in the greater responsibility of all members for the common cause.

Naturally, it is impossible to draw a clear boundary between stages in the continuous development of the student collective, because different spheres of relations in it may develop unevenly. It is difficult to connect the stages with temporal reckonings as well. Their duration in collectives cannot be the same. Our study showed that even in the fourth year student collectives are at different stages of development. In some groups (see the table) intragroup activity is very low (the activity coefficient in group 436-3 is 0.19; in 436-2, 0.22), and there is a danger that a cohesive collective in them will not have time to form before graduation. In other student groups, however, cohesion is quite high (group 625-1 = 0.57; 925-1 = 0.44; group 925-2 = 0.43). In such groups, as a rule, students have a developed feeling of pride in their collective.

Contributing to the favorable development of the cohesion of the collective are, first of all, the very principles of socialism. V. I. Lenin said that, in building socialist society, “we shall work to eradicate the accursed rule: ‘each for himself and God for all’... We shall work to implant in the consciousness, in the habit, in the everyday practice of the masses the rule: ‘all for one and one for all’...”¹².

Other factors also exert a positive influence on the cohesion of student collectives. It is well known that joint

work unites and binds people together. It makes them dependent on one another, determines their interconnections, and gives rise to a certain labor discipline and collectivist relations.

Students’ academic work, although it takes place in joint activity, by virtue of its specificity does not give rise to such close interconnections as work in the production process. At first glance it may seem that it does not promote the development of the collective. But a student’s studies are not only his personal affair; they are a matter of public importance. Therefore, in higher educational institutions, as at enterprises, collectives assume certain obligations, enter into competition for the title of “best group,” and so on. Participation in competition imposes responsibility on the collective and on each individual. Consequently, even with this specific nature of work, the collective’s common goal is felt, the interconnection of its members is established, a certain labor discipline takes shape, and cohesion is strengthened.

The cohesion of the collective is, of course, connected with the development and level of upbringing of its members. Here much depends on the number of activists in the collective, on their moral qualities and organizational abilities, as well as on the experience and persistence of the curator.

The development of the collective’s basic quality is also influenced by the presence of communication within it, interpersonal relations, the absence of hidden and open conflicts, agreement on matters of principle, and so forth.

The problem of developing the cohesion of a student-group collective requires further in-depth analysis through concrete studies and experiments.

1. A. S. Makarenko. Collected Works in 7 volumes, vol. 5, p. 164, 1958. ↩

2. V. S. Rakhmanin. Ideological Work and the Structure of Collectives. Youth and Socialism. “Molodaya gvardiya.” Section 8, 1967; V. S. Mironenko. On Psychological-Sociological Studies of the Student Collective. Ibid.; I. Nastavshev. Experience in Studying the Structure of Personal Interrelations in Student Groups. Ibid.; B. Rubin, Yu. Kolesnikov. The Student through the Eyes of a Sociologist. Rostov, 1968; I. V. Sukhanov. The Collective of a Student Group. Sociological Studies of Educational Work in Higher School. Gorky State University. Scholarly Notes, issue 91. Gorky, 1969; G. I. Petrova. The Student Collective, Its Structural and Functional Connections. Materials of the Conference of Young Scholars in the Social Sciences, Dedicated to the 100th Anniversary of the Birth of V. I. Lenin, issue 2. Tomsk, 1969; S. M. Pushkin. Public Opinion of the Student Collective as a Factor in Moral Education. Questions of Pedagogy of Higher School. Tomsk, 1969; V. T. Nosatov. Experimental Study of the Student Collective. Ibid.; E. N. Arshchenkova. On the Question of the Character of Intragroup Relations. Materials of the Scientific Conference of Young Scholars of Tomsk Higher Educational Institutions. Vol. 2. Section of the Humanities. Tomsk, 1968, and others. ↩

3. K. Marx and F. Engels. 2nd ed. Works, vol. 3, pp. 75–76; vol. 4, p. 447. ↩

4. A. S. Makarenko. Works in 7 volumes, vol. 5, pp. 354–356. Moscow, 1958. ↩

5. For example, the Program for the Upbringing of Full-Time Students for the Entire Period of Study at the Institute, adopted at TPI. Tomsk, 1968. ↩

6. A. S. Makarenko, vol. 5, pp. 75–82. ↩

7. A. S. Makarenko, vol. 5, p. 75. ↩

8. A. S. Makarenko, vol. 5, p. 152. ↩

9. I. F. Livshits. “The Specialized Department and the Adaptation of First-Year Students.” Cybernetics and the Higher Educational Institution, p. 59. Tomsk, 1969. ↩

10. A. S. Makarenko, vol. 5, p. 152. ↩

11. K. Marx and F. Engels. 2nd ed., Works, vol. 1, p. 406. ↩

12. V. I. Lenin. Collected Works, vol. 41, p. 108. ↩