What is modern historical science. Modern historical science
Exam questions by history.
1. Fundamentals of the methodology of historical science .
History studies the traces of human activity. The object is a person.
Functions historical knowledge:
Scientific and educational
predictive
Educational
social memory
The method (method of research) shows how cognition takes place, on what methodological basis, on what scientific principles. A method is a way of research, a way of building and substantiating knowledge. More than two millennia ago, two main approaches to historical thought arose that exist to this day: this is an idealistic and materialistic understanding of history.
Representatives of the idealistic concept in history believe that spirit and consciousness are primary and more important than matter and nature. Thus, they claim that human soul and reason determine the pace and character historical development, while other processes, including those in the economy, are secondary, derived from the spirit. Thus idealists conclude that at the core historical process there is a spiritual moral perfection of people, and human society it is the man himself who develops, while the abilities of man are given by God.
Proponents of the materialistic concept argued and continue to argue the opposite: since material life is primary in relation to the consciousness of people, it is precisely economic structures, processes and phenomena in society that determine all spiritual development and other relations between people.
For Western historical science, an idealistic approach is more characteristic, for domestic - a materialistic one. Modern historical science is based on the dialectical materialist method, which considers social development as a natural historical process, which is determined by objective laws and at the same time is influenced by the subjective factor through the activities of the masses, classes, political parties, leaders, and leaders.
There are also special-historical research methods:
chronological - provides a presentation historical material in chronological order;
synchronous - involves the simultaneous study of events taking place in society;
dichronous - periodization method;
historical modeling;
statistical method.
Methods of studying history and modern historical science.
Empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge.
Historical and logical
Abstraction and absolutization
Analysis and synthesis
Deduction and induction, etc.
1.Historical and genetic development
2.Historical and comparative
3.historical and typological classification
4.historical-system method (everything in the system)
5. Biographical, problematic, chronological, problem-chronological.
Modern historical science differs from the historical science of all previous eras in that it develops in a new information space, borrowing from it its methods and itself influences its formation. Now the task is coming to the fore not just writing historical works on a particular topic, but the creation of a verified history, verified by large and reliable databases created by the efforts of creative teams.
From the editor: We thank the European University Press at St. Petersburg for the opportunity to publish a fragment from the book of the historian Ivan Kurilla "History, or the Past in the Present" (St. Petersburg, 2017).
Let's now talk about historical science - how much does it suffer from violent storms in the historical consciousness of society?
History as a scientific discipline is experiencing overload from different sides: the state of the historical consciousness of society is an external challenge, while the accumulated problems within science, calling into question the methodological foundations of the discipline and its institutional structure, represent internal pressure.
Plurality of subjects ("History in fragments")
Already in the 19th century, history began to fragment according to the subject of research: in addition to political history the history of culture, economics appeared, and later social history, the history of ideas and many areas studying various aspects of the past.
Finally, the most uncontrollable process was the fragmentation of history according to the subject of historical questioning. It can be said that the process of fragmentation of history is driven by the identity politics described above. In Russia, the fragmentation of history by social and gender groups was slower than by ethnic and regional variants.
Together with the fragmentation of the methodology used by historians, this situation led to the fragmentation of not only historical consciousness in general, but also the field of historical science itself, which by the end of the century was, in the words of the Moscow historian M. Boytsov (in the sensational professional environment in the 1990s article), a pile of "fragments". Historians have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to unite not only historical narrative, but also historical science.
The reader has already understood, of course, that the notion of the possibility of the only true historical narrative, the only correct and final version of history is opposed to the modern view of the essence of history. You can often hear questions addressed to historians: well, how was it in reality, what is the truth? After all, if one historian writes about some event in this way, and another - in a different way, does it mean that one of them is mistaken? Can they come to a compromise and understand how it was "really"? There is a demand for such a story in society (from such expectations, probably, the recent attempt by the popular writer Boris Akunin to become the “new Karamzin”, and, to some extent, disputes about the “single textbook” of history grow). Society, as it were, requires historians to agree, finally, to write a single textbook in which “the whole truth” will be stated.
Indeed, there are problems in history that can be compromised, but there are also problems where this is impossible: it is, as a rule, a story told by “different voices”, associated with the identity of a particular social group. The history of an authoritarian state and the history of the victims of some kind of “great turn” is unlikely to ever create a “compromise option”. An analysis of the interests of the state will help to understand why certain decisions were made, and this will be a logical explanation. But his logic will in no way “balance” the history of those people who, as a result of these decisions, lost their fortune, health, and sometimes life - and this story will also be true about the past. These two views on history can be presented in different chapters of the same textbook, but there are many more such points of view than two: it is difficult, for example, to reconcile the history of different regions in a large multinational country. Moreover, the past provides historians with the opportunity to create many narratives, and the bearers of different value systems (as well as different social groups) can write their own “history textbook”, in which they can describe history in terms of nationalism or internationalism, statism or anarchy, liberalism or traditionalism. Each of these stories will be internally consistent (although, probably, in each such story there will be silence about some aspects of the past that are important for other authors).
It is apparently impossible to create a single and consistent story about history that unites all points of view - and this is one of the most important axioms of historical science. If historians put an end to the “unity of history” quite a long time ago, then the awareness of the immanent inconsistency of history as a text is a relatively new phenomenon. It is connected with the above-mentioned disappearance of the gap between the present and the recent past, with the interference of memory in the process of historical reflection. modern society.
Modern historians have a problem with this many narratives, many stories about the past that are produced by different social groups, different regions, ideologists and states. Some of these narratives are confrontational and potentially carry the germ of social conflicts, but the choice between them has to be made not on the basis of their scientific nature, but on the basis of ethical principles, thereby establishing a new connection between history and morality. One of the newest tasks of historical science is to work on the seams between these narratives. Modern representation about history as a whole, it looks rather not like a single stream, but like a blanket sewn from different patches. We are doomed to live at the same time with different interpretations and be able to establish a conversation about a common past, maintaining differences, or rather polyphony.
historical sources
Any historian will agree with the thesis formulated by the positivists that reliance on sources is main feature historical science. This remains as true for modern historians as it was for Langlois and Segnobos. It is the methods of searching and processing sources that are taught to students at historical faculties. However, in a little over a hundred years, the content of this concept has changed, and the main professional practice historians were challenged.
In order to understand the difference in attitude towards the sources of historical science and the practice preceding it, we must recall that what we call the falsification of documents was not uncommon in the Middle Ages and was not condemned at all. The whole culture was built on respect for authority, and if something was attributed to authority that was not said by him, but certainly good, then there was no reason to doubt it. Thus, the main criterion for the truth of a document was the good that this document provided.
Lorenzo Valla, who first proved the forgery of the “correct document”, did not dare to publish his “Reflection on the fictitious and false donation of Constantine” - the work was published only half a century after the author’s death, when the Reformation had already begun in Europe.
Over the course of several centuries, historians have developed ever more subtle ways of determining the authenticity of a document, its authorship, and dating in order to exclude the use of fakes in their work.
The "past", as we found out, is a problematic concept, but the texts of the sources are real, they can be literally touched, re-read, and checked the logic of predecessors. The questions formulated by historians are addressed precisely to these sources. The first sources were living people with their stories, and this kind of sources (limited by time and space) is still important to this day when working with recent and modern history: projects " oral history» The 20th century brought significant results.
The next type of sources were official documents remaining from daily activities. different kind bureaucracy, including legislation and international treaties, but also numerous registration papers. Leopold von Ranke preferred diplomatic documents from the state archives to other types of documents. Statistics - state and commercial - allows you to apply quantitative methods in the analysis of the past. Personal memories and memoirs traditionally attract readers and are also traditionally considered very unreliable: memoirists, for obvious reasons, tell the version of events they need. However, given the interest of the author and after comparison with other sources, these texts can give a lot to understand the events, motives of behavior and details of the past. From the moment of its appearance, the materials of the periodical press have been used by historians: no other source allows us to understand the synchronism of various events, from politics and economics to culture and local news, like the pages of newspapers. Finally, the Annales school proved that any object that bears traces of human influence can become a source for the historian; a garden or a park laid out according to a certain plan, or varieties of plants and animal breeds bred by man, will not be left aside. Accumulation of significant amounts of information and development mathematical methods its processing promises great breakthroughs in the research of the past with the beginning of the use of Big Data processing tools by historians.
However, it is important to understand that in and of themselves, until the historian's field of interest, a text, information, or material object is not a source. Only the question asked by the historian makes them so.
AT last third In the 20th century, however, this practice was challenged. By postulating the inaccessibility of the past, postmodernists have reduced the work of historians to the transformation of some texts into others. And in this situation, the question of the truth of this or that text faded into the background. Much more importance was given to the problem of what role the text plays in culture and society. "Konstantin's gift" determined state-political relations in Europe for many centuries and was exposed only when it had already lost its real influence. So what does it matter if it was a fake?
The professional practice of historians also came into conflict with the instrumental approach to history that is spreading in society: if the past is not recognized as an independent value and the past should work for the present, then the sources are not important. The conflict that broke out in the summer of 2015 between the director of the State Archives of the Russian Federation Sergey Mironenko, who presented documentary evidence of the composition of the “feat of 28 Panfilov’s men” in the battle for Moscow in 1941, and the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky, who defended the “correct myth” from its verification by sources, is indicative.
“Any historical event, having ended, becomes a myth - positive or negative. The same can be attributed to historical figures. Our heads of state archives should conduct their research, but life is such that people operate not with archival information, but with myths. References can strengthen these myths, destroy them, turn them upside down. Well, the public mass consciousness always operates with myths, including in relation to history, so this must be treated with reverence, care, and caution.
Vladimir Medinsky
In fact, politicians not only express their claims to control history, but also deny the right of historians to expert judgment about the past, equating professional knowledge based on documents with "mass consciousness" based on myths. The conflict between the archivist and the minister could be classified as a curiosity if it did not fit into the logic of the development of the historical consciousness of modern society, which led to the dominance of presentism.
Thus, having parted with positivism, we suddenly found ourselves in the face of a new Middle Ages, in which a “good purpose” justifies the falsification of sources (or their biased selection).
Laws of history
At the end of the 19th century, the debate about the scientific nature of history focused on its ability to discover the laws of human development. Throughout the 20th century, the very concept of science has evolved. Today, science is often defined as "a field of human activity aimed at developing and systematizing objective knowledge about reality" or as "description with the help of concepts." History certainly fits into these definitions. In addition, various sciences use the historical method or historical approach to phenomena. Finally, one must understand that this is a conversation about the correlation of concepts developed by European civilization itself, and these concepts are historical, i.e. change over time.
And yet - are there historical laws, "laws of history"? If we talk about the laws of development of society, then this question should obviously be redirected to sociology, which studies the laws of human development. The laws of development of human societies certainly exist. Some of them are statistical in nature, some allow you to see causal relationships in a repeating sequence. historical events. It is precisely this kind of laws that are most often declared by supporters of the status of history as "rigorous science" as "the laws of history."
However, these "laws of history" were most often developed ("discovered") not by historians, but by scientists involved in related sciences of society - sociologists and economists. Moreover, many researchers single out a separate field of knowledge - macrosociology and historical sociology, who consider "their" classics such scientists as Karl Marx (economist) and Max Weber (sociologist), Immanuel Wallerstein and Randall Collins (macrosociologists), Perry Anderson and even Fernand Braudel (historians also consider only the last of the list to be their classic). In addition, historians themselves very rarely in their writings offer formulas for the laws of history or somehow refer to such laws. At the same time, questions posed within the framework of macro-sociological, as well as economic, political science, philology and other social science and humanitarian disciplines, historians with great pleasure ask the past, thus transferring the theories of related sciences to the material of the past.
It's easier to talk about historical discoveries. There are two types of discoveries in history: the discovery of new sources, archives, memoirs, or the staging new problem, question, approach, turning into sources what was not previously considered sources, or allowing to find new in old sources. Thus, a discovery in history can be not only a birch bark found during excavations, but also a new research question.
Let's dwell on this point in a little more detail. Since the days of the Annales school, historians have begun their work by posing a research question - this requirement seems to be common to all sciences today. In the practice of historical research, however, there is constantly repeated clarification and reformulation of the question in the process of working on it.
The historian, in accordance with the model of the hermeneutic circle, constantly refines his research question on the basis of the data he receives from sources. The final formulation of the historian's research question becomes the formula of the relation of the present to the past, established by scientists. It turns out that the research question itself is not only the starting point, but also one of the most important results of the study.
This description well illustrates the idea of history as a science of the interaction of modernity with the past: the right question defines the “potential difference”, maintaining tension and establishing a connection between modernity and the period under study (as opposed to those social sciences who seek to find the answer to the question originally posed).
Examples of the laws of history would be the repetitive patterns of using the past in contemporary debates (the selection in the past of stories and issues that help solve today's problems or in the struggle for a group vision of the future; the limitations of such selection, the influence scientific papers and journalism on the formation of the historical consciousness of society), as well as ways of setting goals and obtaining historical knowledge.
Notes
1. Cliometry - a direction in historical science based on a systematic application quantitative methods. The heyday of cliometry came in the 1960s and 70s. Published in 1974, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery by Stanley Engerman and Robert Vogel ( Fogel R.W., Engerman S.L. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. Boston; Toronto: Little, Brown, and Company, 1974) was the cause of fierce controversy (the conclusions about the economic efficiency of slavery in the southern United States were perceived by some critics as a justification for slavery) and showed the possibilities of cliometry. In 1993, one of the authors of the book, Robert Vogel, was awarded Nobel Prize in economics, including for this study.
6. Monuments cultural heritage- strategic priority of Russia // Izvestia. Nov 22, 2016
7. The hermeneutic circle was described by G.-G. Gadamer: “It is possible to understand something only thanks to pre-existing assumptions about it, and not when it is presented to us as something absolutely mysterious. The fact that anticipations can be a source of errors in interpretation and that prejudices that promote understanding can also lead to misunderstanding, is only an indication of the finitude of such a being as man, and the manifestation of this finitude of him. Gadamer G.-G. About the circle of understanding // The relevance of the beautiful. M.: Art, 1991).
NON-STATE GENERAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
"MOSCOW ECONOMIC INSTITUTE"
Faculty of Design
ESSAY
Subject "History"
On the topic " History as a science. Russia in the world historical process»
Performed:
Anahit A. Harutyunyan
Correspondence department
Moscow
2017
1. Preface
6. The history of Russia is an integral part of world history. general and special in historical development
10. Literature
Foreword
The word "history" came to us from the ancient Greek language, where it meant "investigation, establishment." History was identified with the establishment of authenticity, the truth of events and facts, and meant any knowledge obtained through research, and not just historical knowledge proper in the modern sense. Currently, the term "history" has several meanings. On the one hand, history refers to any process of development in nature and society (for example, the history of species, the history of science, etc.), on the other hand, the concept of "history" refers to the past stored in the memory of people, as well as any story about it past. History, as a special humanitarian science, is engaged in the study of the past of human society in all its diversity. The past does not disappear - it lives in each of us, determining our destiny, our everyday life, our vector of development, our way of life. Therefore, history always surrounds a person and is present in ourselves, although it is sometimes very difficult to catch it with a glance, hearing or thought. It is this “look”, the turning inward of ourselves, that all the humanities are devoted to, among which historical knowledge occupies a special place.
The history of a country is, first of all, the history of its people, and every nation has the right to be proud of its history. Like a life story individual person embodied in the features of his personality, in his knowledge, skills, character traits, so the past of an entire people is embodied in the achievements of the present. However, each person must remember not only the events of his life, but also know the history of his ancestors - only then will he be able to fully realize his place in the succession of generations and more deeply understand the meaning of his own existence. To understand oneself, to understand the surrounding life, to imagine a possible course of events - that's what history is for.
Comprehension of history is not only the acquisition of a sum of knowledge about the past, but it is always the development of historical thinking, which allows you to more clearly understand your position in society, clearly define your civic position and your attitude to ongoing events and phenomena, reveal and understand their essence and direction. True comprehension of historical knowledge is possible only with its personal comprehension, with independent search, selection and interpretation of facts.
History as a science: Auxiliary items and history features
History is a science about the past of human society and its present, about the patterns of development of social life in specific forms, in spatio-temporal dimensions. The content of history is the historical process, which is revealed in the phenomena of human life, information about which has been preserved in historical monuments and sources. These phenomena are extremely diverse and relate to the development of the economy, the external and internal social life of the country, international relations, and the activities of historical figures.
The historical past is recreated by scientists on the basis of material culture, written sources or some other reason. But since the heritage of the past is huge, and human activity is very diverse, it is almost impossible to cover them entirely. Therefore, in historical science there is a specialization according to several principles:
- by temporal (chronological) coverage. In the historical process, the main eras are distinguished (traditionally: primitiveness, antiquity, the Middle Ages, modern / modern times) and their individual periods;
- by spatial (geographical) coverage. World history can be represented as the history of individual continents (the history of Africa, Latin America), regions (Balkan studies, history of the Middle East), countries (Sinology), peoples or groups of peoples (Slavic studies);
– in various spheres of human activity (political, legal, economic, military, scientific, etc.).
In addition, historical science includes several special branches: archeology, which studies the past from material sources; ethnography, which studies living peoples and ethnic communities, their way of life and culture; source studies, which develops the theory and methodology for studying and using historical sources; historiography, which studies the formation and development of historical science (the history of history). There are also a number of special (auxiliary) historical disciplines that study certain forms and types of historical sources:
§ Paleography - an auxiliary historical discipline (a special historical and philological discipline) that studies the history of writing, the patterns of development of its graphic forms, as well as monuments of ancient writing in order to read them, determine the author, time and place of creation. Palaeography studies the evolution of the graphic forms of letters, written characters, the proportions of their constituent elements, the types and evolution of fonts, the system of abbreviations and their graphic designation, the material and tools of writing. A special branch of paleography studies the graphics of cryptography systems (cryptography).
§ Diplomatics - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies historical acts (legal documents). It explores ancient documents of a diplomatic and legal nature: charters, acts and similar texts and their originals. One of its tasks is to distinguish fake acts from real ones.
§ Genealogy - an auxiliary historical discipline that deals with the study of family relationships of people, the history of childbirth, the origin of individuals, the establishment of family ties, the compilation of generational paintings and family trees. Genealogy is linked to heraldry, diplomacy and many other historical disciplines. Since the beginning of the 21st century, due to scientific progress, genetic genealogy using human DNA analysis is gaining popularity.
§ Heraldry - a special historical discipline dealing with the study of coats of arms, as well as the tradition and practice of their use. It is part of emblematics, a group of interrelated disciplines that study emblems. The difference between emblems and other emblems is that their structure, use and legal status correspond to special, historically established rules. Heraldry precisely determines what and how can be applied to the state coat of arms, family coat of arms, and so on, explains the meaning of certain figures.
§ Sphragistics - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies seals (matrices) and their impressions on various materials. Initially developed as part of diplomacy, dealing with the determination of the authenticity of documents.
§ Historical metrology - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the measures used in the past - length, area, volume, weight - in their historical development. Often units of measurement did not form a metric system, they are referred to as traditional systems of measurement. Historical metrology studies the history of the genesis and development of various measurement systems, the names of individual measures, their quantitative ratios, establishes their real values, that is, their correspondence to modern metric systems. Metrology is closely related to numismatics, since many peoples in the past had weights that coincided with monetary units and had the same name.
§ Numismatics - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the history of coinage and money circulation.
§ Public functions of numismatics: identification of numismatic cultural monuments; the study of characteristic facts, connections and processes that contribute to a deeper understanding of history and fill in the gaps in historical science.
§ Chronology - an auxiliary historical discipline that establishes the dates of historical events and documents; sequence of historical events in time; a list of any events in their time sequence.
§ Historical geography - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies history through the "prism" of geography; it is also the geography of a territory at a certain historical stage of its development. At the moment, 8 sectors of historical geography are distinguished: - historical physical geography (historical geography) - the most conservative branch, studies landscape changes; - historical political geography - studies changes in the political map, political system, routes of conquests; - historical geography of the population - studies the ethnographic and geographical features of the distribution of the population in the territories; - historical social geography - studies the relationship of society, the change of social strata; - historical cultural geography - studies the spiritual and material culture; - historical geography of interaction between society and nature - direct (human influence on nature) and reverse (nature on human); - historical economic geography - studies the development of production, industrial revolutions; historical and geographical regional studies.
§ Archiving - a scientific discipline that studies and develops theoretical, methodological and organizational issues of archiving and its history.
§ Archeology - a historical discipline that studies the historical past of mankind from material sources.
§ Ethnography - a part of historical science that studies ethnic peoples and other ethnic formations, their origin (ethnogenesis), composition, settlement, cultural and everyday features, as well as their material and spiritual culture.
§ Historiography is an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the history of historical science. Historiography tests the correct application of the scientific method in writing a historical work, focusing on the author, his sources, the separation of facts from interpretation, as well as style, author's biases and the audience for which he wrote this work in the field of history.
§ Historical computer science - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the methodology of using information technology in the study of the historical process, the publication of historical research and teaching historical disciplines, as well as in archival and museum work.
History is traditionally the basis liberal education and the most important factor in the formation of people's self-awareness. It performs a number of functions, often beyond the world of science. These include:
- descriptive (narrative) function, which boils down to fixing what is happening and the primary systematization of information; cognitive (cognitive, explanatory) function, the essence of which is the understanding and explanation of historical processes and phenomena;
- prognostic (prediction of the future) and practical-recommendatory (practical-political) functions. Both involve using the lessons of the past to improve the lives of human communities in the near and distant future;
- educational (cultural and ideological) function, function social memory. These functions are responsible for the formation of historical consciousness, self-identification of society and the individual.
Principles and methods of historical science
The process of the formation of historical science is inextricably linked with the improvement of the methodology of history, that is, the whole complex of principles and methods within which historical research is carried out. The main principles of scientific historical research include:
- the principle of objectivity, which implies the reconstruction of historical reality based on true facts and knowledge of the objective laws of historical development. Each phenomenon must be investigated, taking into account both its positive and negative sides, regardless of the subjective attitude towards it, without distorting or adjusting the available facts to previously developed schemes;
- principle of determinism scientific approach, according to which all observed phenomena are not accidental, but have a cause, are determined by certain prerequisites, and all reality appears as a plexus of cause-and-effect relationships;
- the principle of historicism, which requires consideration of the phenomenon under study, taking into account the specific chronological framework and the specific historical situation. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the phenomenon in development, that is, to take into account what reasons gave rise to it, how it was formed and how it changed over time. It is also necessary to study each phenomenon in conjunction with other phenomena that existed at that time and developed over time, in their interconnection and interdependence (the principle of the unity of the historical process);
- the principle of a social approach, which implies the need to take into account the interests, traditions and psychology of certain classes, estates, social strata and groups, the correlation of class interests with universal ones, a subjective moment in the practical activities of governments, parties, individuals;
- the principle of alternativeness, which allows for the possibility of multivariate historical development. Guided by it, the researcher creates models of alternative development by comparing with similar phenomena in world history, determines the degree of probability of the implementation of an event. Recognition of historical alternatives allows us to see untapped opportunities and learn lessons for the future.
The methods used in historical research can be divided into two groups: general scientific and special (private scientific). To special historical methods relate:
- a concrete historical or ideographic method, the essence of which is in the description of facts, phenomena and events, without which no research is possible;
- comparative-historical method, which implies that the phenomenon is studied not in itself, but in the context of similar phenomena, separated in time and space; comparison with them makes it possible to better understand the phenomenon under study;
- historical-genetic method, which is associated with tracing the genesis, i.e. the origin and development of the phenomenon under study;
- the retrospective method consists in sequential penetration into the past in order to identify the causes of events; - the historical-typological method is associated with the classification of objects of knowledge according to a chosen feature (features) to facilitate their analysis;
- the chronological method provides for the presentation of historical material in chronological order. In addition, historical research uses the methods of other sciences that come to the aid of history within the framework of interdisciplinary interaction: linguistics, anthropology, biology, medicine, sociology, psychology, geography, geology, physics, chemistry, mathematics (statistics). A significant part of these methods is used through source studies, in the process of expanding the source base.
The Essence of the World Historical Process
The world historical process is an objective given, a sphere of social life in its historical dimension. In philosophy, there is a comprehension of historical life as a coherent, ordered integrity, the movement of which has a certain direction. The philosophy of history has its cognitive goals and objectives.
§ Knowledge of the logic of the historical process, i.e. its unity, integrity, general orientation. It is also necessary to establish the causes and factors of historical development, to discover the universal laws of history as a whole and its individual stages. Their discovery and knowledge is understood as the comprehension of the main and essential in history. History is, in its concreteness, always and everywhere a collection of infinitely varied and unique historical biographies. individual countries and peoples. But this does not contradict the principle of unity and integrity of the world historical process. True, in this situation, an opposite view of historical life is possible: all phenomena are considered as unique and inimitable, regularities are denied, and as a result, the unity of world history.
§ Carry out a chronological division of historical life - stages, epochs, stages. The global process is presented as an orderly one, where each stage is conditioned by the past and is important for the future. Periodization is an inevitable moment and the basis of the explanation of history. The main problem in this case is the choice of a basis that would help to highlight the features that separate one group of societies from others. For example, such grounds can be economic factors (productive forces, production relations) or non-economic factors (religion, way of thinking, political organization).
§ Identify the general form of the flow of history. This problem arises as a search for relationships between the universal content of history and specific, diverse historical phenomena. It also allows you to find out the nature of the relationship between the past, present and future. This may be a linearly directed deployment, in which the times cannot repeat each other; it can be a movement in a circle or cyclic, not carrying with it any fundamental novelty; it can be a spiraling course of historical life, meaning a certain combination of linear and circular movement, and so on.
§ Discover the meaning of the historical development of mankind. The meaning of history is seen in the realization of certain principles, ideas, essences or values. Such factors build the historical life of society into an organized, orderly whole, transparent to philosophical understanding. This state is supplemented by an anthropological thesis, designed to express the purpose of human existence.
The diversity of theories of the world historical process requires a certain systematization, within which several leading directions and approaches can be distinguished, for example, religious and secular, formational and civilizational.
Patterns and stages of the historical process.
To identify the patterns of the world-historical process, the concept of "type of civilizational or historical development" is used - a civilization or several civilizations with similar basic principles of economic management and organization of political power, a commonality of the fundamental foundations of mentality and historical destiny. The study of world history makes it possible to identify four types of historical development: development within the framework of the annual cycle or non-progressive type, eastern or cyclical type of development, western or progressive type of development and mixed type of development.
The first in time of occurrence is development within the framework of the annual cycle (development in a circle), which is somewhat conventionally called the type of non-progressive development, which arose simultaneously with the appearance of a modern type of man about 40 thousand years ago. At present, it has been preserved among the Indians of America, the natives of Australia and New Zealand, a number of small peoples of Siberia and the Far North, and some tribes of Central Africa. The main occupations of the people were hunting and gathering, as well as beekeeping and fishing, then agriculture and cattle breeding. There was public ownership of the means of production and social equality. The main social unit was the tribal community, which was headed by the elders. Communities united into tribes. The consciousness of ancient people was mythological. It is characterized by the unity of the rudiments of religion, philosophy, science and art. Essence of this type development fully characterizes its name. The forms of activity of man and society change depending on the time of year and are reproduced from generation to generation. If change does occur, it will take millennia.
The second in time of occurrence is the eastern type or the type of cyclic development. It originated with the appearance of the first states in the Ancient East in 4-3 thousand BC. and continues to exist today. This type of development includes a number of ancient civilizations (Sumerian, Akkadian, ancient Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian, etc.), civilizations of pre-Columbian America (Incas, Aztecs, Maya, Zapotecs, etc.), medieval Mongolian; modern eastern civilizations formed during the periods ancient world and the Middle Ages (Chinese-Confucian, Indo-Buddhist, Islamic).
The history of Russia is an integral part of world history. general and special in historical development
It is impossible to study the history of one state and understand the deep meaning of the phenomena that took place in it, without studying in the aggregate the history of other states and the entire world historical process as a whole. The history of the Russian and foreign states throughout the entire world historical process "evolves" i.e. selects the most stable forms of government that meet the needs (economic, spiritual, etc.) of people in a given specific historical period. Throughout the history of mankind, people have come up with a diverse number of forms of government, these are monarchies, parliamentary and presidential republics, mixed forms of government, etc. If we take the primitive society of any people, then we can observe that the evolution of the forms of government in the early stages took place along the same path, with some cultural and national features inherent in this people. But on certain stage some states remained at the same level, while others went forward to forms of government that corresponded to the needs of people, their people. There are many reasons for this: the development of culture, science, social relations between people, geographical position this or that state, etc. As an example of evolution, one can show the modern Western democratic society and the society of the peoples of Central Africa with its inherent archaic features of the structure of the state and the living conditions of people. Russia, as a part of Europe, went the way of development from the tribal system to the feudal system (serfdom) and until the 20th century, Russia, like many countries of Western and Eastern Europe, did not know any other form of government except as a monarchy - a form of government in which the supreme state power is partially or completely owned by one person - the monarch and, as a rule, is inherited.
World history studies and presents the entire long and difficult path that mankind has traveled from ancient times to the present day. The history of Russia is part of world history. The object of study is the process of the emergence and development of the human community in the territories that were and are now part of the Russian state. The history of Russia cannot but be at the same time Russian history or the history of the Russian people, which makes up 80% of the population of the Russian Federation. The Russian man with his character, traditions, mentality became the creator of the original Russian civilization, the main figure Russian life and history.
The Development of Historical Science in Russia: Classical and Modern Russian Historical Science
The history of Russia as a science has its own history, and it must be known. If history as a science is a systematic depiction of the development of societies over time, then a natural question arises: when did Russian history become a science. It turns out that not so long ago and not immediately. The transformation of the history of Russia into science took place gradually.
The desire to describe the history of Russia, as S.F. Platonov well showed, manifested itself first in the compilation of ancient chronicles, then in “chronographs”, “synopsis”. The features of chronicles and chronographs are the content of disorderly information about events from traditions and legends. Then in the works of German scientists I. G. Bayer, G. F. Miller, A. L. Schlozer, who worked in Russia under Peter the Great and later, in the works of Russian scientists V. N. Tatishchev, M. P. Pogodin, M. M. Shcherbatova(XVIII)
However, the first integral view of the historical past of Russia was presented only at the beginning of the 19th century. N. M. Karamzin in his 12-volume work "History of the Russian State". In Russian history, he saw and illuminated as the main process - the creation of national state power, to which Russia was led by its talented figures. Among them are two main ones: Ivan III and Peter the Great (XV and early XVIII century).
After Karamzin, the famous historians were N. A. Polevoy, M. T. Kachenovsky, and N. G. Ustryalov. But the strictly scientific integrity of historical views was first expressed in our country in the 40s of the 19th century. in the works of S. M. Solovyov and K. D. Kavelin, who laid the foundations of the historical-legal school in historical science in Russia, and historical science in Russia has finally reached its maturity.
Scientists of the German historical school (XVIII - early XIX centuries) believed that human society develops as an organism, according to strict objective laws, which neither chance nor a person, no matter how brilliant, can reject. And the task of historians is to discover these laws, to arm their society with knowledge. Hence the requirement for historians: conclusions must be substantiated by facts, follow from facts. Without facts there is no science in history.
It was German scientists who, with their strict requirements, turned history from free stories, true stories - fables into a rigorous science. And this tradition of theirs was the basis of historical science in Russia. The beginning was laid by historians of the 18th century. and representatives of the historical-legal school. Later, this tradition was continued by supporters of the historical-economic school and the school of Soviet historians. Historians S. M. Solovyov and K. D. Kavelin, on the basis of facts, considered Russian history as a natural replacement of some laws of community life by others and studied the development of state forms of life in society under the influence of nature and the characteristics of tribal life.
The historical and economic school was represented by V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911). The development of society was considered by him as the result of the influence of socio-economic conditions, that is, not by the will of kings or other persons, but under the influence of objective conditions, first of all.
In the XX century. A school of Soviet historians has developed in Russia. They described history from the standpoint of the ideology of Marxism-Leninism and the narrow class formational approach. AT last years the desire of our historians to cover the past from the standpoint of a civilizational approach is noticeable. The following stand out: the cultural-historical school and the complex, multifactorial school.
Concepts of the development of historical science.
Knowing the characteristics of each school allows you to notice the positions of their authors when reading the works. Knowledge of concepts plays the same role.
Stand out:
1. Christian;
2. Rationalist;
3. Cultural and historical concept.
Supporters of the Christian concept correlate the history of mankind with the religious (Christian idea) about the creation of the world and man by God and present the course of history as a manifestation of God's will.
In Soviet times, history books written from the standpoint of the Christian concept were not published. However, in the late 90s. such a book appeared. This is Budzilovich P.I. Russian history. In it, the preface is called: “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”, here the history of Russia is divided into 4 periods:
1. Pagan (Before the Baptism of Russia);
2. From the Baptism of Russia in 988 to the church schism in the 17th century. and Peter I. Creation of Holy Russia;
3. From the split of Peter I until February 1917 "Synodal period";
The main idea of the textbook: "the Russian Orthodox monarchy, apparently, was the most perfect form of government for Russia."
The rationalistic concept is based on the ideas of the German philosophers Hegel and K. Marx. Its supporters consider history as the result not of God's will, but of rational, i.e. conscious, independent activity of people, which is based on the actions of objective laws. The task of historians is to reveal their action, to promote their knowledge by society and their consideration in life. According to Hegel, the history of mankind is the embodiment in the activities of people of the creative power of the "world mind", "world spirit", "absolute idea" that existed outside of man (like God). K. Marx - proposed a materialistic understanding of history (materialistic approach). That is - that the world is material, it consists of moving matter, which takes various forms: chemical, physical, organic, social. Humanity, human society is one of the forms of eternally moving matter. main meaning history, according to Marx, is the production of material goods, during which classes with different, opposing interests are formed in society: the ruling, exploiting classes, and the exploited classes of producers of material goods.
There is a constant struggle between them. The struggle between classes is the main driving force of history. And the task of historians is to reveal this class struggle.
Formational approach in historical science.
K. Marx developed the theory of socio-economic formations. The history of mankind is the history of formations:
1. Primitive communal system;
2. Slaveholding;
3. Feudal;
4. Capitalist;
5. Communist, to which mankind will come in the future.
They differ, each, in their mode of production of material goods and forms of class struggle. Formations follow one after another in a linear plan as the stages of development of society, from the lowest to the highest. Based Marxist theory formations, a formational approach has developed in historical science.
In Russia, Marx's theory was corrected by Lenin and Stalin and was called "Marxism-Leninism". And Soviet historians were obliged to cover history only in strict accordance with the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. What Marx said, Lenin was not subject to criticism. The decisive role in society was recognized for the classes producing material goods, the poorest sections of society, and history was covered from the standpoint of these classes and sections. This led to its distortion, the spiritual culture was assigned a service role in the life of society, the role of man was underestimated.
Civilization approach in historical science.
On the basis of the cultural-historical concept and the theory of civilization, a civilizational approach has developed in historical science.
Until 1917, the historical science of Russia developed freely on the basis of all three concepts. After 1917, especially since the 1930s, when the totalitarian system in the USSR completed its formation, the Christian concept was rejected as hostile, the cultural-historical concept was banned as bourgeois, and the rationalistic one was reduced to its Marxist-Leninist branch, on the basis of which the formational approach was formed. in Soviet historical science. If in European democratic countries this concept was based on liberal-democratic ideas arising from the philosophy of Hegel, Marx and other thinkers, and contributed to the free development of historical science, then in our country this concept hindered the development of science.
In the mid 30s. was published" Short course History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks”, edited by I. V. Stalin and giving examples of the formational approach, according to which later, after the 30s, the history of Russia and world history were rewritten, generations were brought up Soviet people including historians. All this must be taken into account when listening to people of older generations, reading works and textbooks on history published before the 1990s.
And - even from those published in the 90s. many bear the stamp of the formational approach.
Overcoming the negative values of the formational approach involves the rejection of the absolutization of its criteria, the promotion of the attention of historians of man, people, society, culture in all its forms, the recognition of the legitimacy, positive role and negative values of all types of property created by human society, and all historically emerging classes society, study and functional roles in the life of civilization; a civilizational approach to the study of history is needed.
A modern approach to the study of history is possible only if the ideas of the theory of civilizations are taken into account. At the same time, students of history should not be confused by the word "theory". The fact is that, while studying the theory of civilization, we actually consider the most common features and trends in the development of human society, i.e. actually the history of society only in the most general ideas about it. Therefore, the ideas of the theory of civilization are of methodological importance for the study of the history of Russia.
N. Ya. Danilevsky identified three stages in the development of societies into civilization:
1. ethnographic,
2. state,
3. civilizational.
There are theories of local civilizations - as large communities and their cultures that once emerged and existed in time and space, and - the theory of a universal civilization, suggesting that humanity arose as a single and developed accordingly.
According to Danilevsky, civilizations are “forms of the historical life of mankind”, which differ in cultural and historical type, i.e., originality, originality of religious, social, everyday, industrial, political development.
Civilizations have existed for thousands of years and have reached a high degree of development. The founders gave them definitions in the light of their emergence, development and difference from the pre-civilized state of societies. P. A. Sorokin gave them a more complete and deep definition. According to Sorokin, civilizations are large cultural systems or supersystems, supranational cultural communities. They're in to a large extent determine the main manifestations of socio-cultural life, the organization and functions of small groups and cultural systems, the mentality and behavior of individuals, the nature of events, trends and processes. Therefore, without the study and knowledge of civilizations, we will not be able to properly understand the nature and causes of changes in society.
The theory of common human civilizations was reflected in the book of the American scientist O. Toffler "The Third Wave". The essence of the theory: humanity is united and from a certain time, about 10 thousand years ago, began to acquire common features and trends, and since then, it has been a single civilization. In its development, 3 stages, or civilizations, are distinguished:
The first stage is an agrarian-handicraft civilization, or a traditional society. It arose 10 thousand years ago. It was based on manual labor, traditions dominated, development was slow.
The second stage is an industrial society (civilization) caused by the industrial revolution of the 18th-19th centuries. Development is accelerating.
The third stage is the information civilization caused by the information and computer revolution. It was joined by the developed capitalist countries of the West in the 1960s-1980s. The basis of development is computers and personal computers, computerization. A new quality of culture is emerging: it is based on information and technology, the intellectual, spiritual, moral potential of a person is increasing, on the basis of which a new, informational civilization is being formed. Manual labor is reduced to a minimum and will disappear in the future.
Modern discussions about the place of Russia in the world historical process
The history of Russia is part of the world and cannot be considered outside of its context. Consider the basic concepts.
According to the Marxist-Leninist point of view, ionic features do not matter. But since Marxism was a product of Western culture, its supporters and followers actually propose to consider Russia by analogy with societies belonging to Western civilization. The main thing boils down to the following: a change in socio-economic formations took place in the country, although lagging behind Europe and with significant features. However, in the second half of the 19th century, according to supporters of this point of view, it sharply accelerated its development and almost simultaneously with the advanced European countries passed over to monopoly capitalism (imperialism) and, finally, earlier than other countries, approached the threshold of transition to the highest formation—communism (its first step—socialism).
It must be borne in mind that socialism is a social ideal and, like any ideal, it cannot be realized in practice. But even if we ignore this, then in order to accept such a concept as the main one when considering the history of Russia, it is necessary to give convincing answers to at least two questions. Why did the country, which lagged behind the European states, belonged to the second echelon, turned out to be the first in the transition to socialism?
Why is it that none of the first echelon countries, i.e. developed, did not follow Russia into socialism? With all the abundance of Marxist-Leninist literature published in thousands of copies in the Soviet era, there is no convincing answer to these questions, except for allegations of the cunning of the world bourgeoisie and the betrayal of social democracy, which cannot be taken seriously. Nevertheless, supporters of this concept still exist and in considerable numbers, especially among professional social scientists of the older generation. However, this is an a priori point of view: under a predetermined theoretical concept appropriate historical facts are selected.
The next point of view is to a certain extent close to the first, since it suggests considering Russia as part of Western civilization. Its supporters recognize only Western experience and apply only Western categories to Russia (excluding the Marxist concept). They believe that Russia, although lagging behind, developed in line with Western civilization. On the eve of the First World War, its development reached a high degree. However, in a country weakened by the First World War, the Bolsheviks took power, relying on the illiterate, lumpenized masses, and Russia left the civilizational highway. It established ochlocracy - the power of the crowd, which grew into totalitarianism (violence on a massive scale). Only now, according to the supporters of this concept, conditions have arisen for a return to civilization, which is understood exclusively as Western. Thus, this position is taken by those who are in favor of Russia's rapid transition to a purely Western version of development. These are, as a rule, the most radical democrats among economists, historians, and political scientists. The proposed concept is Bolshevism in reverse.
Proponents of another point of view classify Russia as an oriental-type country. They believe that attempts to include Russia in the European path of development: the adoption of Christianity, the reforms of Peter I - ended in failure. At first glance, it is very similar, especially about the tyrant - the party leader. At a second glance, one can state the presence of obvious features of the oriental type in pre-revolutionary and Soviet society. During the existence of the USSR, exclusively vertical ties functioned in society (through power structures). For example, until recently, two factories, separated only by a fence, could communicate with each other exclusively through the ministry. In the history of Russia, including Soviet period, one can trace the cyclicity: the period of reforms was inevitably followed by the period of counter-reforms, the revolution was followed by the counter-revolution, and so on. However, in pre-revolutionary Russia, there was a secular state, private property, and market relations. Apparently, not everything is so simple.
R. Kipling once said: “East is East. And the West is the West, and they will never meet.” However, there is a point of view according to which the East and the West converged and they converged in Russia. The idea of a Eurasian, special essence of Russia has been present in the public mind and in theoretical developments for a long time - several centuries. P. Ya. Chaadaev wrote in 1836: “One of the saddest features of our peculiar civilization is that we are still discovering truths that have become beaten in other countries ... The fact is that we never went along with other peoples, we do not belong to any of the known families of the human race, neither to the West nor to the East, and we have no traditions of either. The sharp turn that the country made in 1917-1920 gave rise to a trend that spread among the young intelligentsia in exile: it was called "Eurasianism". For the first time, Eurasianism loudly declared itself in the early 1920s. Prince N.S. Trubetskoy, P.L. Savitsky, G.B. Frolovskiy and others, first in Sofia, then in Berlin and Prague, published several collections with characteristic titles in a row. Later, several more representatives of the emigrant intelligentsia joined this trend: the philosopher L.P. Karsavin, the historian G.V. Vernadsky, the lawyer N.N. Alekseev and some others.
The main idea of Eurasianism: Russia differs both from the West and from the East, it is a Special World - Eurasia. What arguments were given to support this thesis? The Russian nationality, which was formed under the strong influence of the Turkic and Finno-Ugric tribes, took the initiative to unite multilingual ethnic groups into a single multinational nation of Eurasians, which lives in single state- Russia. The exclusivity, the uniqueness of Russian culture, which is Eurasian - Russian, was emphasized: “The culture of Russia is neither European culture, nor one of Asian ones, nor the sum or mechanical combination of elements of both. It must be contrasted with the cultures of Europe and Asia as a median, Eurasian culture. . Much has been written about symphony, catholicity, and the integrity of the Russian world. Thus, the ideological and religious basis of Russia stood out. The Eurasianists assigned a decisive role in this part to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church. Absolutizing the role Orthodox Church in spiritual life, they idealized the importance of the state in public life. The state acted in their conception as the supreme master of society, with strong power, but at the same time maintaining contact with the people. Russia was considered as a closed ocean-continent. It has everything. If the whole world collapses, Russia can exist without losses alone in the whole world, the Eurasians argued.
At the same time, the Eurasianists were sharply negative towards the West, they considered Westernism alien to Russia. Along with this, the special influence on the Russian (Russian) self-consciousness of the Eastern - "Turanian" factor was emphasized, without taking into account which, according to the Eurasians, it is impossible to understand the course of Russian history. From here came the opposition of Europe and Asia, the connection between Russia and Asia was transmitted.
Passions boiled over Eurasianism in emigration. There were supporters, but more - opponents who saw in this hobby an attempt to justify Bolshevism. Most of those who started this research, in the late 20's. departed from Eurasianism. Agents were introduced into their ranks by the Chekist bodies of the USSR. In 1928, the newspaper "Eurasia" was published in Paris with the money of the NKVD, which led to the disintegration and discrediting of this direction. It finally died out with the outbreak of World War II.
For the Soviet people at that time, Eurasianism was a closed page. Now the works of the Eurasianists are being actively published, their ideas are being commented on and developed, which were largely explained by the crisis of Western civilization, the decline in the prestige of Western values, as well as the sharp turn of Russia during the First World War away from European values. In the conditions of modern political struggle, the Eurasian concept was simplified and became an aid to the propaganda of Russian nationalism. We must agree that Russia is not reducible in its pure form to either the East or the West, it is necessary to really take into account the influence of the Eastern factor on its development. But this, perhaps, is all that can be accepted from the Eurasians. It is impossible to base the concept of Russian history on these ideas, especially in their modern modifications.
Increasingly, regardless of different points of view on the essence of Russia, the category "civilization" is used. Communists, monarchists, and liberals easily entered their ideas into this concept. We constantly come across the phrase "Russian civilization" or, more specifically, "Russian civilization". Despite the difference in positions, both liberal, and communist, and patriarchal-conservative ideas about Russian civilization proceed from the peculiarities of the Russian mentality, Russian culture, Russian Orthodoxy, since they consider Russia as an integrity. Some politicians and cultural figures of the national-patriotic direction at the word Russia literally fall into a trance, and then the concept of "Russian civilization" sounds like a spell that appeals not to reason, but to faith or even superstition. All this is far from harmless. Here lies the danger of manipulating public consciousness, in which there is no clear historical understanding of the world - the old has collapsed, the new is taking shape slowly and difficultly. It is argued that this civilization has a special spiritual basis - Orthodoxy, it is distinguished by a special form of community, collectivism - catholicity, a special attitude to economic activity, which is characterized as "non-covetousness" (i.e., lack of desire for profit). The creation of a powerful state is considered as the greatest achievement of Russian civilization. Western civilization, unlike Russian, is characterized as mundane, devoid of spirituality, consumerism and even aggressive consumerism. O. And Platonov, the modern author of several books on this subject, writes. “Russian civilization rejected the Western European concept of development as predominantly scientific, technical, material progress, a constant increase in the mass of goods and services, the possession of an increasing number of things, growing into a real consumption race, “greed for things”. The Russian worldview opposed this concept with the idea of perfecting the soul, transforming life through overcoming the sinful nature of man.
Many peoples with different civilizational orientations that were part of the state (when more, sometimes less, but always - a lot), turned Russia into a heterogeneous, segmental society. This means that there is not one (Russian) Russia, but many "Russia" in one state. At different times and in different volumes, it included natural communities (peoples of Siberia and northern Europe) professing paganism, enclaves of Muslim civilization (Volga region, Kazakhstan, middle Asia, Crimea, a significant part of the Caucasus). As well as Buddhist regions (Kalmykia, Tuva, Buryatia, Khakassia), regions with a population belonging to European civilization (Finland, Poland, the Baltic states and some others). All these peoples profess values that are incapable of coalescence, synthesis, integration. They are not reducible to Russian. Muslim, Lamaist, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, pagan and other values cannot be brought together, subordinated to Orthodoxy.
Russia does not have socio-cultural unity, integrity. Because of this, it cannot be expressed within the framework of the East-West alternative (that is, the presence of eastern and western features), it is not an independent civilizational type (Eurasia, for example). Pre-revolutionary Russia for centuries preserved and increased socio-cultural and spiritual pluralism. They tried to change the essence of Russia in Soviet times, but to no avail (this was shown by the collapse of the USSR). Even today, Russia remains a heterogeneous society in terms of civilization.
Russia-USSR cannot be regarded as a single civilization. We can talk about the civilizational characteristics of certain segments and the forms of their coexistence and interaction within the state, as well as about a certain development paradigm (or paradigms) common to the whole country, which was not constant, but changed at different stages of its history. The analysis of the material is based on the following initial principles:
Russia is a civilizationally heterogeneous society. This is a special, historically formed conglomerate of peoples belonging to different types of life, united by a powerful, centralized state with a Great Russian core.
The civilizational paradigm of the development of this complex, huge community has changed at different stages of history . Russia is geopolitically located between two powerful centers of civilizational influence - east and west, it includes peoples developing both in the western and eastern versions. This inevitably affected the choice of development paths. With sharp turns, historical whirlwinds "shifted" the country closer to the West, then closer to the East. Russia was like a "drifting society" at the crossroads of civilizational magnetic fields. In this regard, for our country, like no other, throughout history, the problem of choosing alternatives has been extremely acute. Which way to develop?
Factors of originality of Russian history and culture.
In Russian historiography, there are four factors that determined the features (backwardness, delay, originality, originality) of Russian history:
1. Natural and climatic: the life of a peasant depended on the weather and soil fertility. Unfavorable conditions had a direct impact on the type. The ruling class created rigid levers of the state mechanism aimed at withdrawing the surplus product. From here comes the centuries-old tradition of the despotic power of the autocracy - serfdom. Low productivity, dependence on natural conditions determined the stability of communal principles of economy in Russia. The natural and climatic factor largely determined the features national character Russians: a) extreme exertion of forces for a relatively long period of time, b) collectivism, c) readiness for help up to self-sacrifice.
2. Geopolitical factor: a) a vast, sparsely populated, territory unprotected by natural barriers, b) a huge network of rivers, c) insecurity of borders, d) isolation from the seas. The geopolitical factor has determined such features of the Russian people as national tolerance, lack of nationalism, universal responsiveness.
3. Religious factor: Orthodoxy came from Byzantium. Orthodoxy is characterized by a movement for the better, the ideas of social justice, Christianity is distinguished by great freedom of inner life, collectivism is characteristic. Catholicism is from Rome, its values are in the market, wealth, the Catholics have the main features of power, domination, discipline.
4. Factor of social organization: its main elements: a) the primary socio-economic unit is a corporation (community, collective farm, etc.), and not a private entity, as in the West, b) the state is not a superstructure over society, as in the West, and the creator of society, c) the state either exists, or it is not effective, d) the state, society, the individual are not divided, but integral, e) the state relies on a corporation. 3. Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Methodology of history. ID Territory of the Future. 2006.
4. Moiseev V.V. Russian history. Volume 1. Belgorod State Technological University. V.G. Shukhova, EBS ASV. 2013.
5. Petrovskaya I.F. Per scientific study history of Russia! On the methods and techniques of historical research. Petropolis. 2009. Semennikova L.I. Russia in the world community of civilizations. Tutorial for universities. - Bryansk, 1999.
9. Sakharov A.N. On new approaches to the history of Russia // Questions of history. 2002.
10. Shelkovnikova N.V. History of Russia for foreigners. Amur Humanitarian-Pedagogical State University. 2010.
History studies the traces of human activity. The object is a person.
Functions of historical knowledge:
Scientific and educational
predictive
Educational
social memory
The method (method of research) shows how cognition takes place, on what methodological basis, on what scientific principles. A method is a way of research, a way of building and substantiating knowledge. More than two millennia ago, two main approaches to historical thought arose that exist to this day: this is an idealistic and materialistic understanding of history.
Representatives of the idealistic concept in history believe that spirit and consciousness are primary and more important than matter and nature. Thus, they argue that the human soul and mind determine the pace and nature of historical development, while other processes, including in the economy, are secondary, derived from the spirit. Thus, idealists conclude that the basis of the historical process is the spiritual moral improvement of people, and human society is developed by the person himself, while the abilities of man are given by God.
Proponents of the materialistic concept argued and continue to argue the opposite: since material life is primary in relation to the consciousness of people, it is precisely economic structures, processes and phenomena in society that determine all spiritual development and other relations between people.
For Western historical science, an idealistic approach is more characteristic, for domestic - a materialistic one. Modern historical science is based on the dialectical-materialist method, which considers social development as a natural historical process, which is determined by objective laws and at the same time is influenced by the subjective factor through the activities of the masses, classes, political parties, leaders, leaders.
There are also special-historical research methods:
chronological - provides for the presentation of historical material in chronological order;
synchronous - involves the simultaneous study of events taking place in society;
dichronous - periodization method;
historical modeling;
statistical method.
2. Methods of studying history and modern historical science.
Empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge.
Historical and logical
Abstraction and absolutization
Analysis and synthesis
Deduction and induction, etc.
1.Historical and genetic development
2.Historical and comparative
3.historical and typological classification
4.historical-system method (everything in the system)
5. Biographical, problematic, chronological, problem-chronological.
Modern historical science differs from the historical science of all previous eras in that it develops in a new information space, borrowing its own methods from it, and itself influences its formation. Now the task is coming to the fore not just writing historical works on a particular topic, but the creation of a verified history, verified by large and reliable databases created by the efforts of creative teams.
Features of modern historical science.
1. Socio-cultural development
2. Spiritual and mental foundations
3. Ethno-demographic features
4. Natural and geographical features
5. Political and economic aspects
6. Providentialism (by the will of God)
7. Physiocrats (natural phenomena, not God, but man)
8. Geographic, public, social factors.
9. Interdisciplinary approaches (social anthropology, gender studies).
3. Humanity in the era of primitiveness.
Primitive society (also prehistoric society) - a period in the history of mankind before the invention of writing, after which there is an opportunity for historical research based on the study of written sources. In a broad sense, the word "prehistoric" is applicable to any period before the invention of writing, starting from the moment the Universe arose (about 14 billion years ago), but in a narrow sense - only to the prehistoric past of man.
Periods of development of primitive society
In the 40s of the 20th century, Soviet scientists Efimenko, Kosven, Pershits, and others proposed periodization systems for primitive society, the criterion of which was the evolution of forms of ownership, the degree of division of labor, family relations, etc. In a generalized form, such periodization can be represented as follows:
1. the era of the primitive herd;
2. the era of the tribal system;
3. the era of the decomposition of the communal-tribal system (the emergence of cattle breeding, plow farming and metal processing, the emergence of elements of exploitation and private property).
Stone Age
The Stone Age is the oldest period in the history of mankind, when the main tools and weapons were made mainly of stone, but wood and bone were also used. At the end of the Stone Age, the use of clay (dishes, brick buildings, sculpture) spread.
Periodization of the Stone Age:
Paleolithic:
The Lower Paleolithic is the period of the appearance of the oldest human species and the widespread distribution of Homo erectus.
The Middle Paleolithic is a period of displacement by evolutionarily more advanced species of people, including modern humans. Neanderthals dominated Europe during the entire Middle Paleolithic.
The Upper Paleolithic is the period of domination of the modern type of people throughout the globe in the era of the last glaciation.
Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic; The period is characterized by the development of technology for the production of stone tools and the general culture of man. Ceramic is missing.
Neolithic - the era of the emergence of agriculture. Tools and weapons are still stone, but their production is brought to perfection, and ceramics are widely distributed.
copper age
Copper Age, Copper-Stone Age, Chalcolithic or Eneolithic - a period in the history of primitive society, transition period from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age. Approximately covers the period 4-3 thousand BC. e., but in some areas it exists longer, and in some it is absent altogether. Most often, the Eneolithic is included in the Bronze Age, but sometimes it is also considered a separate period. During the Eneolithic, copper tools were common, but stone tools still prevailed.
Bronze Age
The Bronze Age is a period in the history of primitive society, characterized by the leading role of bronze products, which was associated with an improvement in the processing of metals such as copper and tin obtained from ore deposits, and the subsequent production of bronze from them. The Bronze Age is the second, late phase of the Early Metal Age, succeeding the Copper Age and preceding the Iron Age. In general, the chronological framework of the Bronze Age: 5-6 thousand years BC. e.
iron age
The Iron Age is a period in the history of primitive society, characterized by the spread of iron metallurgy and the manufacture of iron tools. For civilizations of the Bronze Age, it goes beyond the history of primitive society, for other peoples, civilization develops in the era of the Iron Age.
The term "Iron Age" is usually applied to the "barbarian" cultures of Europe, which existed simultaneously with the great civilizations of antiquity (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Parthia). The “barbarians” were distinguished from the ancient cultures by the absence or rare use of writing, and therefore information about them has come down to us either according to archeology or from references in ancient sources. On the territory of Europe in the era of the Iron Age, M. B. Schukin identified six "barbarian worlds":
Celts (La Tène culture);
proto-Germans (mainly Jastorf culture + southern Scandinavia);
mostly Proto-Baltic cultures of the forest zone (possibly including Proto-Slavs);
Proto-Finno-Ugric and Proto-Sami cultures of the northern forest zone (mainly along rivers and lakes);
steppe Iranian-speaking cultures (Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.);
pastoral and agricultural cultures of the Thracians, Dacians and Getae.
Since the 90s a new stage in the development of domestic science begins. Most of all, this affected the humanities. The last decades have given us significant research on the university question in pre-revolutionary Russia.
One of the studies covering the history of universities throughout the entire 19th century is the collective publication "Higher Education in Russia. Outline of History before 1917." edited by V.G. Kinelev. The charter of 1804 considers the collection as an organic part of the reforms conceived by Alexander I and the "secret committee". The apparatus of the Ministry of Public Education at that time was small and concentrated entirely in the main department of the schools. According to the idea of reform, each Big City had to have its own university, which would be the center of the entire educational district. But the formation and development of universities was held back due to insufficient training of students and a shortage of teachers.
V. A. Zmeev, who studies higher education in pre-revolutionary Russia in its development, also considers the first decades of the 19th century the period of the formation of the university system, the creation of a basis for subsequent development, the expansion of university geography, the creation of higher educational institutions in the regions.
The same point of view is shared by F. A. Petrov, the author of a multi-volume work on the history of universities. Directly from the creation of the Ministry of Public Education and the publication of the charter of 1804, a network began to form Russian universities. A hierarchy of educational institutions is established, headed by universities. The most important step F. Petrov considers the approval of university autonomy to be the charter of 1804. The charter of 1804 clearly demarcated the sphere of the state in university life and the sphere of the university itself, within which they could act independently. Thus, a certain balance was established.
A. Yu. Andreev, exploring the influence of Moscow University on public life countries, names early XIX century a successful start to the formation of the university system. And, despite the fact that the provisions of the Charter of 1804. were in fact impossible, their very declaration had profound consequences for the further development of universities.
Home distinctive feature formation of the university system in Russia AI Avrus calls the creation of universities exclusively on a state basis, in contrast to Europe. University charter 1804. was created on the model of Western European ones, therefore universities received “... democracy unprecedented at that time in Russia at that time ...” Among the shortcomings, Avrus A. I. names that it was not possible to introduce the freedom of teaching according to the Western model, due to a lack of professors, and freedom hearings, due to a lack of confidence in the independence of students. He also admits that many provisions of the charter remained on paper, since the general freedom granted to universities did not correspond to the surrounding reality.
The reaction period that began already in the next decade was the result of events in Europe: the victory in the war of 1812-1814, the formation of the "Holy Alliance" - the conclusion of agreements with Germany, where at that time student protests took place and conservative figures came to the leadership of universities.
Avrus A. I. calls this period “a real campaign against universities”, in which the unification of the ministries of public education and spiritual affairs played a significant role.
As a result of the introduction of a new charter in 1835, the educational districts were transformed on a bureaucratic basis. Uvarov S.S. was a supporter of limiting university autonomy, asserting classicism as the basis general education, class restrictions in access to higher education. However, the authors propose to abandon the stereotype about the government's desire to suppress higher education, that all changes were reactionary in nature.
Contrary to popular belief that after 1835 universities were completely deprived of their administrative functions and thus were separated from secondary education, F.A. Petrov believes that, on the contrary, never before has secondary education been so subordinated to higher education. University autonomy was not destroyed by the new statute, but "... was only introduced into a certain framework, which allowed universities to focus on solving directly scientific and educational problems." It was at the time of the charter of 1835 that F.A. Petrov refers to the final formation of the university system in Russia. At this time, the main tasks of university education are formed. The cadres of domestic professors are being formed, students are being formed as a social stratum.
O. V. Popov analyzes the drafts of the Charter of 1835 prepared by leading political figures and their role in the preparation of the reform. The author refuses to interpret the Charter of 1835. as unambiguously reactionary. Considering the drafts and provisions of the Charter, O. V. Popov highlights the positive principles laid down in this document and comes to the conclusion that the Charter of 1835. reflects the change in public views on the importance of universities and is quite consistent with the requirements of the time.
From the negative assessment of the Charter of 1835. and the activities of the Minister of Education Uvarov S. S. refuses and Whittaker Ts. Kh: “... if we consider it (activity) according to the criteria of modernization ... it turns out that Uvarov did everything necessary for his time. He laid the foundations for future development, as he managed to grow a well-educated and enlightened elite ... "
Avrus A. I. especially notes the duality in university politics. On the one hand, there is a desire to include universities in the administrative-bureaucratic system of the country and, accordingly, detailed regulation and control over their activities, on the other hand, an understanding of the need to develop education, including university education. It was during this period that significant progress was made in university education; in a number of universities, domestic scientific schools. This progressive development, the progress of universities until the mid-1940s, began to slow down in the second half of the 1940s. Avrus connects this process with the revolutionary events in Europe that began in 1848. The situation in the universities became more and more alarming.
A new university charter was given to universities in 1863. V. A. Zmeev, like most researchers, calls university reform one of the points of the Great Reforms, which “... set in motion all social institutions Russia and could not but affect higher education ... "
S. I. Posokhov speaks about the special significance of the Charter of 1863, as a document for the first time adopted during a wide public discussion.
R. G. Eymontova, the author of a number of monographs and articles on the university reform of 1863, recreates in all details the struggle "at the top" on the issue of university policy. The author does not confine himself to analyzing the development of the draft charter, but presents the complex and controversial course of Alexander II, not only examines the charter and the main changes in university life after the reforms, but also analyzes the process of introducing new rules into life. The reform of 1863 was conceived as an act of granting complete university autonomy. However, as it turned out, the public expected much more from the reforms than the tsarist government intended to give. But it was too late to retreat - the university question was already being discussed in the liberal press. Thus, "the university reform was wrested from the autocracy by the force of the democratic onslaught." However, the most radical innovations were eliminated. Howbeit, new law about universities was no small concession, a concession of the authorities to the public. But the significance of the charter of 1863 cannot be underestimated. Official guardianship over universities is significantly weakened. Gradually, university autonomy, brought to naught by the charter of 1835, is being restored.
The authors of the collection “Higher Education in Russia. Outline of history until 1917" also note the incompleteness of the university reform. The school was made responsible for the "…pernicious false teachings" spreading in the community. The law was passed, but was repealed before it could bring results. The statutes of 1863 failed to stop the tide of social movement, and liberal university law was held responsible for this. Accordingly, the charter of 1884 was adopted not with the aim of bringing something new to the life of universities, but with the aim of repealing the charter of 1863.
Zmeev V.A. notes that despite the almost complete abolition of university freedoms, the Charter of 1884. created the necessary prerequisites for the dynamic development of the entire university system. In the following decades, "... the state higher school developed in a balanced way in the direction of improving the quality of training."
In addition to studies that continue the tradition of considering the formation and development of the Russian university system in the 19th century, depending on the turns of government policy, a number of articles on the history of higher education introducing a new concept of the "Russian model of education". The team of authors contrasts the "Russian model of education" and the process of formation of the Western European university system, substantiates the special path of domestic universities, which lies in the exclusive role of the state in the creation and management of universities. "" It's about about the formation of a special, Russian type of university, we emphasize, a state-owned university, distinguished by a number of special features unknown to the West. Among them is a rich scientific richness curricula and programs, high spirituality and citizenship, and finally, the ability for a collective feat in extreme conditions, which gave rise to such unique signs of national high school as inescapable internal energy and vitality.