Isamaa Reeturite Liit www.isamaaliit.com

Dear friends!
For starters, I would like to ask you to focus on picture on the screen.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Da_Vinci_Vitruve_Luc_Viatour.jpg )
I am sure that you are all very familiar with this image – it’s Leonardo da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man, one of the best known images in the world, at least in the Western world. Maybe even as well known as to have become a cliché that no longer has the power to engage the attention of the viewer. Modern world is, after all, saturated with visual stimulants. Nevertheless, or all the more, as a meditation exercise let us try to concentrate on this picture in silence for, say, twelve seconds.

/A pause. /
Thank you. I will now try to explain why I asked your help in organising this experiment and what is its connection to the subjects of our symposium and particularly to the topic today.

The first reason is the simple need to train and improve our powers of concentration in anticipation of the week ahead, crammed full of extremely interesting events. Just think of the general subject of this symposium: Culture, Globalization, and International Relations over the next Two Decades. Just think what gigantic concepts it involves. Culture! Globalisation and international relations! Two decades! After all, two decades is a period that covers a whole quarter or more of a person’s lifetime or, in political terms, four to five election cycles! For the next week we will find ourselves in the sphere of influence of such enormous concepts. I’m not saying that it is scary. On the contrary, it is inspiring to the extreme. This is exactly why we must prepare ourselves for taking in all this inspiration without losing our heads.

The symposium kicks off with an extremely broad and deep topic – Defining and Understanding Culture in an International Context. Isn’t there an implicit expectation that every one of us is already able to define culture within our narrower cultural field – within our national, regional, linguistic, religious models –, and now the only question remaining is how these definitions and understandings, presumably different from one another, relate to each other in the international, intercultural space? Does it lead to collisions or amalgamations, cool mutual respect or desire to conquer or change one another, pragmatic acknowledgement of the other’s difference or attempts to integrate and to be integrated?

In any case, it’s no news and no secret that the definition of culture is not conclusive, unambiguous or unchangeable even within the one and the same cultural group. The issue of which – and in what way structured – complex of concepts and phenomena we include in the concept of culture, changes with time. In addition, the volume of the concept depends on its operative context, and is thus different in every situation that we are using it in. Therefore, when we speak about culture in the political context, we can take it to mean cultural policy, i.e. political activities and strategies that are implemented in this sector by governments and fall in the administrative field of ministries of culture or similar governmental agencies. Here, culture denotes first and foremost various artistic fields, viewed from the angle of whether and how their cultivation and development can be supported from public budgets, whether and how a favourable environment and organisational framework can be shaped, and so forth. In the same time, the concepts of culture and policy can also be combined into the concept of political culture, denoting the styles of different societies for communicating between political parties, elaborating policies, lobby work and implementation, etc. Similarly, we talk about business culture, corporate culture, etc., and these are not empty words with no correlate in practice. In short, I want to say that the concept of culture is understood and used in different ways even within one particular society, and is subject to temporal and situational changes, not to mention differences in understanding among different societies.

In any case, this is a process that involves many factors and includes multiple variable quantities. Culture is always alive, a living organism.

I would like to return to Leonardo’s drawing. Why did I choose this particular picture as a catalyst for concentration?

The first reason is my own experience. Without being able to completely explain the phenomenon, I can only say that concentrating on this picture has often helped me – helped me to gather my thoughts, overcome the feeling of distraction. Besides, the picture has often had an inspiring effect. Therefore I hazard to guess that others, at least some of you, might find it equally inspiring. This leads us to today’s topic. The question is: does this picture have the exact same effect on me, and you and you – each a unique individual? Does one specific cultural object, one artefact, stimulate the same states of consciousness in different people and inspire more or less similar thoughts and impulses, without longer theoretical explanations? To continue: does the effect depend in any way on the cultural background of every individual – the receiver of influences? Or are there cultural objects whose immediate, spontaneous impact (such as calming down, elation, delight, melancholy) on the receiver does not depend on the cultural, educational, but also, say, genetic and racial differences?

If so, then I guess we could say that the great variability of cultures leaves room for certain invariance – that there is something essential that characterises all cultures. In other words, besides random similar elements in different cultures there are also certain universal matrices or algorithms that every human being spontaneously recognises and that apply and are realised in every possible culture. If this is so, then this is one of the corner stones that we could use as a basis for attempting to achieve mutual understanding between remote cultures.

By the way, I believe that you agree with me when I say that this image by the Italian artist shares its compositional principle with aesthetics developed thousands of kilometres away, in completely unrelated cultures and for different motifs and purposes – I am talking about mandalas. Both achieve almost absolute geometrical perfection, which gives them the ability to create an intuition that the world makes sense. One could talk at length of their similarity despite their differences, and of their differences despite their similarity, but this would take us too far right now. I will only stress my earlier words: although it has lately been supposed that Leonardo might have had access to Chinese manuscripts and technical drawings, it might be more appropriate to talk about the existence of certain universal principles that bridge the gap between cultural differences: principles which – again – could form the basis for global understanding of one another.

And if you allow me to exploit the poor Leonardo even further: in your opinion, where can we categorise the drawing by its genre, type, sector adherence? Is this art in the narrower sense of the word – just a beautiful picture? Is this a technical drawing? Is this an educational aid to demonstrate certain mathematical as well as anatomical hypotheses or statements? The author’s notes as well as the features of the image demonstrate that Leonardo was inspired by his empirical interest in the unity of human being – a real physical person – with the rest of the natural world: the proportions of the human body correspond to the regularities of the macrocosm. At the same time, the illustrative, seemingly very rational, engineerical construction is by no means inferior in terms of its purely aesthetical value or spontaneous emotional impact from, say, the Gioconda of the same painter.

Why am I talking about this? In order to emphasise the internal, innate wholeness of cultures as such. While I have already mentioned the universal similarities nestling in the undercurrents of different cultures, I would now like to draw your attention to the fact that although every specific culture manifests itself in diverse fashions: as arts, sciences, technologies, philosophies, religions and so forth, all these different manifestations let their innate wholeness shine through – just like this drawing by Leonardo belongs simultaneously to the fields of art, sciences and technological developments, as well as giving us hints about philosophy and sense of religion of the renaissance era.

If we grasp one specific culture in its entirety, we also find it easier to mediate it to other cultures, as well as to understand and accept these others too.

I repeat: the wholeness of a culture – any living culture – does not mean it’s ossified, immutable, completely finished. Culture is always a process. It lives, changes and renews itself. This takes place in two mutually complimentary ways.

First of all, like every newborn has the innate ability and need to breathe, they also have the ability, need and organic interest to understand the world, adapt to its laws and try to shape it according to their needs. This is what culture is. And, second of all, – which is particularly related to our topic today – in general, different cultures have contacts, which inevitably leads to borrowing elements from each other, be it for simple curiosity or experimentation or just a spontaneous act. This, in turn, means new inputs and stimulants to cultural processes, which keeps stagnation at bay.

By the way, it is important – perhaps more important than anything else – to realise that culture is not the opposite of nature, as has been consistently proclaimed so long. Culture is a continuation of nature.

Like with nature as a process, culture also has dynamic balance and uninterrupted metabolism. Like any life form, living culture is at any moment identical with itself and keeps its balance mainly thanks to continuous acceptance, refinement and application of impulses from its internal sources as well as from the outside.

Every culture on its own, and culture as a process involving the whole human race, is largely elemental and spontaneous, just like natural processes. Admittedly, the means that a person uses to shape culture in the existing natural environment are unique to us and unavailable to all other biological species: power of reflection, ability to plan ahead, predict the consequences of one’s actions and give feedback, ability to knowingly correct one’s actions. But these means and abilities are as organically innate to human beings as instincts and natural reflexes are to other species. Culture is the continuation of the creation process with instruments available to human beings. The fate of a culture is determined by our ability to apply our critical and creative consciousness as quickly, efficiently and unerringly as any living organism applies its instincts.

The closeness of a culture to the nature does not mean “climbing back up a tree”, it doesn’t mean attempts to imitate earlier cultural models. Instead, it means that the natural and the cultural processes have a common source and are largely governed by the same laws, which are becoming known to us ever more widely and in increasing detail.
The question for today is: with all the cultural codes that we have, all seemingly different and often actually wildly different, are we capable of understanding each other in the context of international contacts that characterise our reality today, and probably even more tomorrow?

The answer is: yes, we are. Providing we are interested in and committed to finding and identifying the a priori, organic common source underneath the code differences. This is the immutable mutator and the immobile mover that the mystics of all religions have referred to. If the interest and the will are there, almost everything is possible.

Ladies and gentlemen, dear friends, my speech has been highly abstract and philosophical, but I believe that this was necessary for creating the background. But now I would like to become really practical and political. I would like to share with you some thoughts, examples and ideas related to the involvement of culture in other fields of human activities, as well as in more general political interests of states, peoples and regions.

Why was I intrigued by the invitation of the Institute for Cultural Diplomacy to take part in this symposium? It was because this institution treats the concept of culture in a broad and interdisciplinary way, in connection with other topics of the field. When examining the programme of events organised by the ICD, we will find economic congresses, conferences and symposiums on global security, energy, climate change and other ecological factors, development of civil society and many other subjects. This is exactly what we need.

It is supremely useful to spread and deepen the understanding that any problems of the world today and tomorrow can be approached from the cultural aspect and that the effort would well be worthwhile. The same applies from the opposite perspective: it is of paramount importance to open up new perspectives in front of cultural and culture policy actors.

It’s no secret that the cliché of culture being some sort of entertaining and amusing addition to the “real life” is still deeply rooted – culture is viewed as something that makes life more beautiful after the elementary needs are satisfied but has no deeper connection to the definition and satisfaction of needs. In short, something that is nice to have but is not vital. Or something that in its more serious, more “esoteric” manifestations, such as scientific fundamental studies or more extreme experiments in arts, is something so “out of this world” that no one except a small number of creators themselves can understand anyway, nor use any part of it in practice. Those clichés that stand in the way of understanding culture and its potentials need to be abolished.

First, please let me draw your attention to an important initiative that might exert considerable influence on changing the set mentality and promoting the development of our continent, and through that also global development – if only it finds sufficient understanding and support.

What initiative am I talking about?

The Barcelona meeting of the EU national ministers of culture took place at the end of March. This was officially an informal meeting, but as far as I know, the ministers had been authorised by their governments to propose, discuss and harmonise their positions on the new draft of the strategy “Europe 2010” on European economic growth and employment. This strategy document, that has been prepared intensively and should be adopted by the European Council in June this year, is meant as a substitute for one of the most important documents setting out European development goals and possibilities for achieving these – the Lisbon Strategy.

Let me remind you that the Lisbon Strategy, adopted at the turn of the millennium, set out to make the European Union the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth. This goal should have been achieved by 2010.

We know that the reality made serious corrections to this vision. It was clear from the interim monitorings organised every few years, and the 2005 Win Kok report, that the implementation of the Strategy takes place much slower and has to overcome more obstacles than expected. In 2009, the Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt admitted that although the implementation of the Lisbon Agenda had led to a certain progress, the experience should ultimately be considered a failure.

The turbulences in global economy of recent years have added a new patch of uncertainty to the conclusive evaluation of the Lisbon initiative and the shaping of a new strategy. It is unlikely that anyone could at the moment convincingly assert which directions the global development prospects and competitiveness of different regions of the world will take, and which economic sectors and methods these will be based on. But it is this unpredictability itself that should act as a strong incentive for intensive generation, consideration and application of innovative ideas.

Innovation and “learning” economy are important keywords and corner stones of the European development strategy. No one has contested them. Yet, it is clear that these are lacking in living content and that the activities that these should have inspired have not been launched with sufficient energy and satisfactory results.

European ministers of culture now took their own, remarkably innovative step at the Barcelona meeting, which had been preceded by a meeting of the Baltic ministers of culture in March, and other meetings to coordinate positions. It was also recalled that similar proposals concerning the Lisbon Agenda, made by the ministers of culture as early as 2007, had not received the deserved attention. In the new context, characterised by the economic crisis and the consequent new geopolitical challenges, the ministers emphasised their conviction that culture is one of the most important capitals that could help Europe ensure its place on the global arena and achieve a transfer to a competitive, inclusive and sustainable economic model.

Ministers think it unavoidable to complement the strategy “Europe 2020”, by including culture and the relevant creative economy as a potential that has been neglected so far. Experience has shown that creative economy as a specific ideology and economic practice has long managed to demonstrate its vitality and potential in order to be more seriously analysed and taken into consideration by strategists. The ministers call on the Member States and the European Commission to work towards a situation where the topics of culture and creative economy are covered in the main text of the strategy as well as in the projects of innovation, competitiveness, digital action plan and social interconnectedness that are based on it.

In short, with this initiative, culture holds out its hand to economy, in order to help it out of the recession and the trap of exhausted approaches. Although this initiative is directed at the European Union and its Member States, we can say that this could hold true to any countries or regions which look for ways of renewing their economy.

We are dealing with the need to overcome or break down the mental barrier between two paradigms – cultural and economic. This requires effort and will from both sides. There is a clear parallel with the main topic of our symposium. We are asking what will happen – or what would we like to see happening – if different cultures come in contact in the context of global communication? Will one be swallowed by the other? Or will they mutually annihilate each other like matter and anti-matter? Or is it possible to achieve the most desirable result: that one new identity, more open and productive than either of the original components, will be created and both cultures will be combined into a common vision without any harm done to either?

Just like the cultural environments of different global regions have for long functioned each according to their immanent, unique paradigm, so we can also talk about the separate development of the narrower cultural and the narrower economic paradigm – enterprises, production, marketing and consumption. Maybe parallel, but separate; sometimes disturbing and obstructing each other, prone to mistrust and misunderstanding.

By now we have started to understand that the interests of global future and permanence require us to overcome the mistrust between cultures and confrontational paradigms, as well as paradigms that treat cultural and economic objectives and values as being separate and having only weak contacts. Being theoretically closer than ever to understanding these common bases and interests, we need the goodwill and the efforts of all the actors even more, so that this new understanding would find its way into practice.

Some examples of the development of creative economy in my home country, Estonia. We treat creative economy as an economic sector based on individual and collective creativity, know-how and talent, which is able to create wellbeing and employment through the creation and use of intellectual property. We have organised conferences in the parliament and analysed specific aspects of creative economy at parliamentary debates on economic revival. We have initiated cooperation between the Ministries of Culture and Economy, as well as between other institutions dealing with culture and promotion of entrepreneurship, in governmental sector and civil society.

For us, creative economy includes fields (and companies active in these fields) such as architecture, audio-visuals, design, performing arts, entertainment information technology, publishing activities, decorative and applied arts, music, advertising and cultural heritage (arts and crafts, museums, libraries, etc.). This list is by no means exhaustive and closed; it is important to take into consideration suddenly appearing and disappearing flexible forms of cooperation and interactions between diverse fields – a phenomenon that characterises the creative economy sector probably better than the traditional economy sectors.

Recent studies have shown that creative economy companies make up 10 % of the total number of Estonian companies and employ about 4.5 % of the total work force. These figures show that such companies are generally small, which means, among other things, that as a rule they are more flexible and have lower production costs. A frequent feature is the complete lack of full-time staff and the use of contractual work force, which in turn means ability to react quickly to the changes of conditions and demands, and the ability to restructure on the go. These abilities are at the core of creativity, and could form the contribution of this sector to the others.

I would especially like to stress that during the rapid economic growth between 2003–2007, when the real growth of the Estonian GNP averaged at 8 % per year, the number of companies in the creative sector grew one third faster than the business sector as a whole. This shows how creative people react more rapidly to a favourable conjuncture and, respectively, suggests that, despite its small size, this sector with its characteristic innovativeness can act as a catalyst that enlivens the economy and makes it more attractive.

The recent studies of the Estonian Institute of Economic Research, which are the source of this part of my speech, show that the creative sector forms 3 % of the Estonian economy as a whole. Not a lot? Perhaps. However, we must not forget that culture and creativity have for decades been considered immeasurable phenomena and have remained outside standard regular statistics of states. The methods for representing the productivity of the creative component are still only developing. Still, the 3 %-strong Estonian cultural sector appears to be a European average. As a comparison with other economic sectors (albeit from a somewhat earlier times, 2003), chemicals, rubber and plastic industry made up 2.3 % of the GNP, i.e. much less than the creative sector despite its pragmatic character and large market demand.

We are waiting for the EU green paper on creative economy, which should be published one of these days, and we have made our contribution to it. In order to revive the economy of developed countries we must give up the production with low added value, develop creative services and offer these straight to the market as well as to the traditional economic sectors, in order to support their innovation. For this to be successful the creative sector must be supported wisely in its initial development phase, e.g. by working out training programmes and a favourable infrastructure, and continue to learn from it.

This is where I would like to propose to the ICD to organise a conference solely devoted to presenting and analysing the experiences of the creative economy. After all, this would fit well into the general context of ICD activities, which are based on the vision of economy, culture, politics and diplomacy forming a single entity.

To continue: having understood the need for people’s intellectual, innovative and creative potential to enter the economy and social life more extensively than so far, we also understand why fundamental debates on the rights of the author and more general issues of intellectual property law are coming up. Moreover, artistic creation is gradually becoming interlaced with all other manifestations of social life, in addition to technical creation and engineering, and it is turning into a factor that is influencing the chain of production and consumption with increasing directness. A particular impulse for delving into author’s rights naturally comes from the explosive development of information and communication technology. Internet is a big challenge to all existing legal models because it allows giving access to works of creation and ideas for millions of people simultaneously, all with the help of only one click and not having to leave home. Wildly varying opinions about piracy (as a concept and as a practice) in determining the number of copies, distribution and use of a work of art clamour for their place under the sun. The issue is worthy of a thorough consideration. In any case, the legal architecture of the era of digital information can hardly remain identical to that of the paper era.

By the way, when we speak about the need for dialogue between different cultures, we are mostly thinking of cases such as Islam and the Western world, or traditional tribal cultures on the one side and the post-modern post-industrial world on the other. But what we really need is an ongoing dialogue and search for win/win solutions inside the very world that we consider to be the developed world. Keeping to the subject of cultural innovation and copyright matters: Google’s forceful initiative to digitalise books started a fierce debate on two different copyright discourses on the two sides of the Atlantic. I admit that I am not completely informed if and how the conflicts have been solved and what kind of compromise has been reached, if any. In any case this seems to be an important precedent when considering the needs of global spreading of culture.

This inspires another proposal to the ICD: take the opportunity at one of the upcoming conferences to analyse copyright issues more in depth; or rather, in a more general way: the legal aspects of the spreading of information in the context of the Internet era. If our objective is to learn to know and understand each other globally, then it is in our interest to shape the most favourable framework for this purpose, including the legal one, in order to facilitate the intercultural dialogue in daily practice.

Dear friends – to sum up, I would like to stress that my main goal was to draw your attention to two interlaced or even identical facts. Firstly, that despite the differences, sometimes even gaping ravines, between cultures and their ways of functioning, they all share the same source and activation mechanism, which is called creativity. We all keep creating with the help of means that are unique to human beings, although every one of us does it in their own special way. Understanding this common essence is what enables us to understand each other and take these differences as our common global resource. And secondly: by their deepest nature, culture and economy are not two separate, even less two contradictory processes, but rather two different viewpoints and two different names for the same process. Like in the case of different cultures, economic and cultural processes should also be defined and promoted with a view of developing a will and an ability to view the technical differences of each process as their common developmental resource, not as an obstacle. The common denominator here is also creativity.

There is no doubt that fossil fuels as a resource will one day run out. This will happen in a foreseeable future. At the same time, the human ability to create – ability to generate ideas, including sensible and cost effective ideas for preservation and progress – is a resource that keeps reproducing itself. This holds the true wealth of nations and the basis for mutual understanding and cooperation.

And now to the coda and the finale: just as I started with a homage to the renaissance master Leonardo – whose genius lies in the ability to combine different cultural and technological codes – I would also like to end with a reference to one of the most inspiring minds of our era, whose ideas were also often ahead of his time. I mean Marshall McLuhan, the man who coined the extremely explicit concept of global village at a time when the enormous development of information and communication technologies had not yet really started and only television with its one-directional information flow – which would seem rather clumsy to modern viewers – was in use. But even then, and more so now, we could sense the world as one small or medium sized village – now that the possibilities for cultures, ideas and economies to communicate and interact are greater and more widely available than ever before.

Above all, I would like to quote the most famous of Marshall McLuhan’s statements, worded as early as the 1960s: “The medium is the message”. The prophetic quality and deepness of this statement are now, half a century later, becoming increasing apparent. I once heard a legend that long-long time ago, when the first line of telegraph, telephone or radio (I don’t remember which) was installed between US West and East coasts, someone had said: “This is all very lovely, but I’m not sure that people on opposite coasts have something to say to one another.” Come to think of it – they might not have! After all, surfing around Twitter, Facebook or public blogs, I don’t yet know what I’m supposed to do with a message forwarded to me and millions of people by a teenager thousands of miles away – a message that informs us that the sender ate oatmeal for breakfast, bothered to brush his teeth and afterwards smoked a little harmless joint. Does this information have any personal importance to me, of all people? Or does the importance of this message on a global scale come even close to the enormous number of its potential receivers? I don’t know.

Strictly speaking – if a message has no importance, it is not actually a message in the sense of passing on information, it’s just unarticulated noise. But McLuhan’s postulate ‘The medium is the message’ reveals that the actual content of this and countless other messages thrown into the virtual space does not lie in their subject, the oatmeal and toothpaste, but in the very fact that it is possible to create, forward and receive such messages. In the fact that there is a network of necessary technological equipment that has the exact purely technical and more widely cultural parameters that allow rapid, constant, highly intense and broad communication. This is the message that the modern civilisation, our contemporary culture sends to itself: the message that we have become a culture with extreme readiness and ability for communication. In our consciousness and in our daily lives, the global village is turning into a small global dorm room.

As a result, and taking our subject of Defining and Understanding Culture in an International Context as a question, my answer would be: the multitude of communication possibilities is in large part the factor defining our culture today and in the foreseeable future. Our culture today and tomorrow is a culture of flexible global communication on every conceivable level, from individuals to states and large corporations. This promotes better mutual understanding and interaction, and helps the functioning of multifarious flexible cooperation networks in all fields of human activity, without anyone having to feel their identity damaged or endangered.

Sama käib ka teiste haridusseaduste kohta, selle vahega, et mõne puhul on omariikluse taastamise aegne terviktekst vahepeal siiski uuega asendunud – kuid neid uusigi on tulnud juba korduvalt muuta. (Meenub anekdoot, kus joodik lubas hakata uueks inimeseks ja hakkaski, aga varsti selgus, et ka see uus inimene tahab juua.) Pole selgust ega ülevaatlikkust.

Seadus kui asutuse põhimäärus
Meenutan siinkohal, et kogu haridus- seaduste pakett tehti ja jõustati omal ajal suhteliselt suure rutuga, omamoodi hädaabinõuna, et anda hari¬dusasutustele tõuge ja orientiirid tegutsemiseks uues taustsüsteemis. Sellest ka paketi ülesehitus insti¬tutsioonide (koolieelne lasteasutus, põhikool ja gümnaasium jne), mitte haridusastmete kaupa, mis oleks olemuslikum ja sisulisem. Samas oli selge otsus ja kava – juba viis-kuusteist aastat tagasi! – asuda kohe uut, sisust lähtuvat paketti koostama. Seletamatul viisil on asi senini sumbunud. Kuigi pea iga kord valitsuse vahetudes on teema uuesti põgusalt ülal, jõuab alati, kui muudatused on mõne seaduse juba liiga kirjuks teinud, uus terviktekst lauale ikkagi asutusekesksel kujul.
See võib näida formaalse, tehnilise küsimusena, aga ei ole seda. Asutuste kaupa lähenemine ei võimalda luua piisavalt ühtset, selge struktuuriga õiguslikku vundamenti ühiskonnas kujunenud haridusstrateegilise mõtte elluviimiseks. Paratamatult upuvad sel viisil loodud seadused korralduse detailidesse, meenutades kohati pigem asutuse põhimäärust ja kodukorda kui seadust. Muuhulgas tähendab see ülereguleerimist (kõik seaduse silmis samatüübilised asutused peavad pisiasjadeni toimima samamoodi) ja samas ka regulatsioonide ähmastamist erandite ja erandite eranditega, et mitte liiga elukaugeks minna.
Kõik see kokku suretab loomingulisust, kahjustab õiguskuulekust ja ummistab haldusaparaati eranditaotlustega. Ka põhjustab just ülemäärane detailsus seaduste pidevat muutmist, kui need on vahel mõnes päris tühises asjas elule jalgu jäänud.
Uue PGS-i takerdumine on minu arust selge märk, et senine seadusandlik praktika on ennast lõplikult ammendanud ja haridussüsteemi õiguslikule toestamisele on aeg läheneda teise nurga alt. Toon näiteks ainult ühe, aga seda kõnekama vasturääkivuse. Ühelt poolt on sisuline ja strateegiline mõtlemine jõudnud arusaamani põhi- ja keskhariduse sügavalt erinevast olemusest (uute õppekavade retooriline osa ja mingil määral ka kavad ise ilmutavad seda juba päris hästi). Teisalt menetleme ikkagi seadust, mis tahab raamistada ühekorraga nii põhi- kui ka keskkoolide (gümnaasiumide) tegevust, kusjuures (paradoks omakorda) eelnõu üks esialgseid suuri eesmärke oli sätestada just nende kohustuslik lahutamine teineteisest. Samas jätab asutusepõhine loogika ülisuure osa keskharidusest – kutsekeskhariduse – selle seaduse vaateväljast hoopis kõrvale, tsementeerides niigi liiga juurdunud eksikujutlust keskhariduse kahe suuna kuulumisest justkui eri maailmadesse ja ühe või teise madalamast väärtusest.

Oleme jõudnud murdepunkti
Niisiis vajame mitte põhikooli-, vaid põhihariduse seadust, mitte gümnaasiumiseadust ja sellest lahus seisvat kutseõppeasutuse seadust, vaid keskhariduse seadust. Sätestada tuleb iga haridusastme ja -suuna otstarve (lõppväljund), kvaliteedistandardid ja see, kelle õigus ja kohustus on jälgida praktika vastavust standardeile.
Põhimõiste on haridus – teadmised, oskused, vilumused, hoiakud, nende kujundamine, arendamine, edasiandmine inimestevahelises suhtluses. Koolid oma korralduslike üksikasjadega pole asjad iseeneses, vaid tööriistad hariduse heaks. Põhimõtteliselt peaks saama mis tahes kombinatsioonis koole asutada, pidada ja – mis on tähtis – nende toimimisviise teatud üldaktsepteeritud raamide piires ise määrata igaüks (riik, omavalitsus või omavalitsuste rühm, kodanikuühendus, äriühing, üksikisik), kel on pädevust ja majanduslikku ning organisatsioonilist võimekust tagada seaduses etteantud kvaliteedistandardite järgimine haridusastmetel ja -suundades, mida konkreetses koolis viljeldakse. (See muudaks tarbetuks ka eraldi erakooliseaduse, mis ongi kuidagi süsteemiväline, samuti kaotaks mõtte arutamine, kas kõik mingit tüüpi või taset koolid peaksid olema munitsipaalsed või riiklikud.)
Ka alushariduse küsimused on elupraktika ja arutluste tulemusel jõudnud punkti, mis juba võimaldaks formaliseerimist vastava seadusena. Olemasolev koolieelse lasteasutuse seadus püüab sätestada ühekorraga nii lastehoiuga kui alusharidusega seonduvat, mis muudab pildi kirjuks ja jätab mõlemast (küll tõesti tihedalt seotud) teemast mõndagi olulist ka suhteliselt uduseks. Samas looks alushariduse standardite ning nendega seotud õiguste-kohustuste põhjalikum läbimõtlemine ja selgem sätestamine pinna, et tekiks ühtlasem tase põhihariduse astmel ja taastuks koolirõõm.
Teistmoodi haridusseadustiku vajaduses ja võimalikkuses veenab mind seegi, et osa kontseptuaalsest käärimisest on jõudnud teatud murdepunkti, kvalitatiivse hüppeni. Ilmekaks näiteks on, kuidas mitu eri algatajatega haridusteemalist foorumit, paralleelselt ja järjestikku, jõudsid ühtviisi seisukohale, et põhikoolide ja gümnaasiumide lahutamine on kummagi haridusastme eripära ja kvaliteedi tagamiseks vältimatu. Kohe aga muutus see üksmeel mõnevõrra ootamatult tohutuks vastuseisuks, kui ministeerium võttis nõuks üldsuse ootuse seaduseks muuta. Ja tagatipuks – niipea kui minister koolide jõuga lahutamisest loobus, selgus, et mitmel pool on omavalitsused vastava protsessi omal algatusel niikuinii käima pannud.

Eluline vajadus ja tegija mõistus
Võtan seda sündmuste jada kui kinnitust oma väitele, et seadus ei pea sunniga määrama korraldusmudeleid (need kirjutab ette eluline vajadus ja tegijate mõistus), küll aga sõnastama sisulised eesmärgid ja vastutuse.
Aga mis siis ikkagi PGS-ist saab? See tuleb muidugi kiiresti vastu võtta, loodus tühja kohta ei salli ja uus õppeaasta läheneb. Menetluse blokeerimine suure hulga algtekstist veel pedantse¬mate muudatusettepanekutega on kao¬tanud mõtte, sest selle põhieesmär¬gil (näidata end jõuetu koolivõrgu agoo¬nia pikendamise teel heade ja õilsatena) pole enam adressaati.
Loodan väga, et suudame kultuurikomisjonis venitamisest üle saada. Mõte aga liikugu uue, sisukeskse seadustiku suunas.

Sama käib ka teiste haridusseaduste kohta, selle vahega, et mõne puhul on omariikluse taastamise aegne terviktekst vahepeal siiski uuega asendunud – kuid neid uusigi on tulnud juba korduvalt muuta. (Meenub anekdoot, kus joodik lubas hakata uueks inimeseks ja hakkaski, aga varsti selgus, et ka see uus inimene tahab juua.) Pole selgust ega ülevaatlikkust.

Seadus kui asutuse põhimäärus
Meenutan siinkohal, et kogu haridus- seaduste pakett tehti ja jõustati omal ajal suhteliselt suure rutuga, omamoodi hädaabinõuna, et anda hari¬dusasutustele tõuge ja orientiirid tegutsemiseks uues taustsüsteemis. Sellest ka paketi ülesehitus insti¬tutsioonide (koolieelne lasteasutus, põhikool ja gümnaasium jne), mitte haridusastmete kaupa, mis oleks olemuslikum ja sisulisem. Samas oli selge otsus ja kava – juba viis-kuusteist aastat tagasi! – asuda kohe uut, sisust lähtuvat paketti koostama. Seletamatul viisil on asi senini sumbunud. Kuigi pea iga kord valitsuse vahetudes on teema uuesti põgusalt ülal, jõuab alati, kui muudatused on mõne seaduse juba liiga kirjuks teinud, uus terviktekst lauale ikkagi asutusekesksel kujul.
See võib näida formaalse, tehnilise küsimusena, aga ei ole seda. Asutuste kaupa lähenemine ei võimalda luua piisavalt ühtset, selge struktuuriga õiguslikku vundamenti ühiskonnas kujunenud haridusstrateegilise mõtte elluviimiseks. Paratamatult upuvad sel viisil loodud seadused korralduse detailidesse, meenutades kohati pigem asutuse põhimäärust ja kodukorda kui seadust. Muuhulgas tähendab see ülereguleerimist (kõik seaduse silmis samatüübilised asutused peavad pisiasjadeni toimima samamoodi) ja samas ka regulatsioonide ähmastamist erandite ja erandite eranditega, et mitte liiga elukaugeks minna.
Kõik see kokku suretab loomingulisust, kahjustab õiguskuulekust ja ummistab haldusaparaati eranditaotlustega. Ka põhjustab just ülemäärane detailsus seaduste pidevat muutmist, kui need on vahel mõnes päris tühises asjas elule jalgu jäänud.
Uue PGS-i takerdumine on minu arust selge märk, et senine seadusandlik praktika on ennast lõplikult ammendanud ja haridussüsteemi õiguslikule toestamisele on aeg läheneda teise nurga alt. Toon näiteks ainult ühe, aga seda kõnekama vasturääkivuse. Ühelt poolt on sisuline ja strateegiline mõtlemine jõudnud arusaamani põhi- ja keskhariduse sügavalt erinevast olemusest (uute õppekavade retooriline osa ja mingil määral ka kavad ise ilmutavad seda juba päris hästi). Teisalt menetleme ikkagi seadust, mis tahab raamistada ühekorraga nii põhi- kui ka keskkoolide (gümnaasiumide) tegevust, kusjuures (paradoks omakorda) eelnõu üks esialgseid suuri eesmärke oli sätestada just nende kohustuslik lahutamine teineteisest. Samas jätab asutusepõhine loogika ülisuure osa keskharidusest – kutsekeskhariduse – selle seaduse vaateväljast hoopis kõrvale, tsementeerides niigi liiga juurdunud eksikujutlust keskhariduse kahe suuna kuulumisest justkui eri maailmadesse ja ühe või teise madalamast väärtusest.

Oleme jõudnud murdepunkti
Niisiis vajame mitte põhikooli-, vaid põhihariduse seadust, mitte gümnaasiumiseadust ja sellest lahus seisvat kutseõppeasutuse seadust, vaid keskhariduse seadust. Sätestada tuleb iga haridusastme ja -suuna otstarve (lõppväljund), kvaliteedistandardid ja see, kelle õigus ja kohustus on jälgida praktika vastavust standardeile.
Põhimõiste on haridus – teadmised, oskused, vilumused, hoiakud, nende kujundamine, arendamine, edasiandmine inimestevahelises suhtluses. Koolid oma korralduslike üksikasjadega pole asjad iseeneses, vaid tööriistad hariduse heaks. Põhimõtteliselt peaks saama mis tahes kombinatsioonis koole asutada, pidada ja – mis on tähtis – nende toimimisviise teatud üldaktsepteeritud raamide piires ise määrata igaüks (riik, omavalitsus või omavalitsuste rühm, kodanikuühendus, äriühing, üksikisik), kel on pädevust ja majanduslikku ning organisatsioonilist võimekust tagada seaduses etteantud kvaliteedistandardite järgimine haridusastmetel ja -suundades, mida konkreetses koolis viljeldakse. (See muudaks tarbetuks ka eraldi erakooliseaduse, mis ongi kuidagi süsteemiväline, samuti kaotaks mõtte arutamine, kas kõik mingit tüüpi või taset koolid peaksid olema munitsipaalsed või riiklikud.)
Ka alushariduse küsimused on elupraktika ja arutluste tulemusel jõudnud punkti, mis juba võimaldaks formaliseerimist vastava seadusena. Olemasolev koolieelse lasteasutuse seadus püüab sätestada ühekorraga nii lastehoiuga kui alusharidusega seonduvat, mis muudab pildi kirjuks ja jätab mõlemast (küll tõesti tihedalt seotud) teemast mõndagi olulist ka suhteliselt uduseks. Samas looks alushariduse standardite ning nendega seotud õiguste-kohustuste põhjalikum läbimõtlemine ja selgem sätestamine pinna, et tekiks ühtlasem tase põhihariduse astmel ja taastuks koolirõõm.
Teistmoodi haridusseadustiku vajaduses ja võimalikkuses veenab mind seegi, et osa kontseptuaalsest käärimisest on jõudnud teatud murdepunkti, kvalitatiivse hüppeni. Ilmekaks näiteks on, kuidas mitu eri algatajatega haridusteemalist foorumit, paralleelselt ja järjestikku, jõudsid ühtviisi seisukohale, et põhikoolide ja gümnaasiumide lahutamine on kummagi haridusastme eripära ja kvaliteedi tagamiseks vältimatu. Kohe aga muutus see üksmeel mõnevõrra ootamatult tohutuks vastuseisuks, kui ministeerium võttis nõuks üldsuse ootuse seaduseks muuta. Ja tagatipuks – niipea kui minister koolide jõuga lahutamisest loobus, selgus, et mitmel pool on omavalitsused vastava protsessi omal algatusel niikuinii käima pannud.

Eluline vajadus ja tegija mõistus
Võtan seda sündmuste jada kui kinnitust oma väitele, et seadus ei pea sunniga määrama korraldusmudeleid (need kirjutab ette eluline vajadus ja tegijate mõistus), küll aga sõnastama sisulised eesmärgid ja vastutuse.
Aga mis siis ikkagi PGS-ist saab? See tuleb muidugi kiiresti vastu võtta, loodus tühja kohta ei salli ja uus õppeaasta läheneb. Menetluse blokeerimine suure hulga algtekstist veel pedantse¬mate muudatusettepanekutega on kao¬tanud mõtte, sest selle põhieesmär¬gil (näidata end jõuetu koolivõrgu agoo¬nia pikendamise teel heade ja õilsatena) pole enam adressaati.
Loodan väga, et suudame kultuurikomisjonis venitamisest üle saada. Mõte aga liikugu uue, sisukeskse seadustiku suunas.