"Progressors": Methodological Movement before and after Perestroika

The widespread use of game methods for solving problems and developing thinking in the 1980s - 1990s, in other words, the game movement, was one of the forms of participation of the intelligentsia in the transformation of Soviet society. It began with organizational-activity games (OAG), created in the Moscow Methodological Circle under the leadership of the philosopher G.P. Shchedrovitsky. The article analyses the gaming movement, its influence, efficiency and social responsibility. Methodologists practiced several forms of social engineering activity: OAG organizer - game technician - political strategist - political consultant - designer of the state system - trainer and teacher of the administrative elite. There are many modern politicians from the first echelon of power among those who have been trained in seminars and games. Methodologists began their social engineering activities during the “Perestroika” period. The article analyzes the game at the RAF (1987), where the theme of democratization was discussed within the framework of the election of the plant director. Game technicians acted as ‘foremen of perestroika’ or ‘progressors’ and offered their own interpretation of democratization, which turned out to be unrealizable in Soviet life. Following the OAG, new types of games were formed: design, problem-practical, simulation, innovation and other games. The gaming movement ended in the late 1990s. Among the external reasons for stopping the gaming movement were: the ill-conceived perestroika program, the collapse of the USSR and the course towards strengthening the new Russian goverment. Among the internal problems are: misunderstanding of the situation in the country by game technicians, the inadequacy of the proposed mechanism for social change to the social and political nature of Russian society, the replacement of the concepts of democracy and democratization with managerial concepts. This ended with the commercialization of the gaming movement, merging it with power structures, serving the state and various social movements. The methodologists have demonstrated their failure in the role of ‘progressors’ and in this sense they have shared the fate of the Soviet intelligentsia. Having suffered a defeat in the role of social engineers, methodologists returned to Castalia to practice and develop methodology in various fields of academic and pedagogical activity.