Modern historical science. History as a science
I love history. I do it: I write and publish articles, monographs. However, like any person connected with history, I cannot raise the question of its scientific nature, or rather, of scientific character of the Russian mainstream of history
.
This is unclear specifically studying history. Yes, there will be a classic answer - a historical process. Great, great. And what is it? Oh yes, human activity overlaid on a timeline. And here comes the first (and key) difficulty: there are a number of sciences that study human activities. The struggle for power - political science, behavioral aspects - psychology, management - economics, relations in the international arena - international relationships, the struggle for power - political science. Each of these sciences has developed its own methodology, its own theories and principles. And here it turns out that there is no place left for the classical historian, because a political scientist should scientifically judge the political struggle during the First World War in Russia (it is in Russia that a perverted idea has been formulated that every old woman and every drunkard under the fence can judge the struggle for power; in the West, political science received precisely scientific development: with a powerful theoretical and methodological base, sometimes even hyper attention to mathematical methods; with active borrowing from related disciplines; I’m already silent about the fact that a number of political scientists received education Nobel Prizes in economics), to study the economic foundations of serfdom - an economist (or a political economist), etc. In fact, we can talk about history of something, about overturning modern sciences into the past. What is a historian to do who does not own
fully methods of none of these sciences
? The answer regarding synthesis and general evolution does not sound convincing: interdisciplinarity is not an easy thing, it also needs (!) a powerful philosophical base. And very often in reality it turns out that history in Russia turns into the work of "bespectacled uncles and aunts" who, armed with common sense, a historical approach, and a critical analysis of documents, began to judge the past. It is especially funny when, without having the proper personal social experience (you can't acquire it in libraries and archives), they "blank out" such great figures of their eras as Peter the Great, Witte or Stolypin. Few think about what they can learn and what they can't; what theoretical premises should be used; what methods they use, what these methods allow you to see, and what they don't; where there is a research error, etc.
Of course, history has its own methodology. However, it is not adequate for economic, sociological or political analysis. Moreover, it is not adequate for analyzing the development of the historical process as a whole. And in general: how many professional historians study precisely the historical process? The vast majority concentrate on their favorite narrow topics, and how the historical process develops is on their side.
All historical methods only good for one: reconstruction
events(although Often
it turns out that talking about methodology is one thing, and conducting specific research is another altogether). In fact, the story turns into a set of facts, excellent empirical base for other sciences, no more. Yes, historians try to look for causal relationships, but most do it within the framework of unscientific narrative logic: what happened before is the cause, what happened later is the effect. Plus some of my thoughts on the topic. Nothing complicated: here is a scientific article (or monograph) ready. If you write something interesting on the cover, you can break the money.
Of course, not everyone does this. There are many works that are written with the actual application of the methods of other sciences, as a result, serious research is obtained. But such units. By the way, I am impressed by the Soviet historical school, where history had a number of strong general theoretical and methodological foundations which had positive results. Unfortunately, the dominance of one methodology and its too rigid understanding often gave rise to works that were absurd in content....
And again: the point of science is to create new knowledge relevant to the present
. Of course, historians like to postulate that without knowing the past one cannot know the future. But how to explain the present or predict the future through looking into the past, they did not say: how to develop a strong scientific methodology to make such transitions. The maximum that historians are capable of: to conduct analogies(without asking, while asking the question: are they appropriate?). But this is not science. On this arsenal traditional domestic historian is exhausted. After all, even intuitively it is clear to everyone, in order to understand the present, one must first peer currently(and many sciences operate in this field). I am already silent that, in addition to complex theoretical constructions, one must know both the past and the present (and the latter is the misfortune of many traditional historians). Of course, we all understand: it is useful to know history, it must to explain something. But to install theoretically grounded
connection (which rests on more than "I see so") between the past and the present, only a few have been able to. And practically all of them are not classical historians at all. First of all, this is the brilliant Marx. Among others - our economist Kondratiev with his "long cycles". From historians, Toynbee can be recalled. But all these are brilliant (or very outstanding) people. The majority of historians, however, are not capable of creating such intellectual products, and, apparently, do not strive for this ( although they are outraged why they are not paid enough there - not a single good economist or sociologist will make such statements, which is significant).
As a result, we get:
a) historians approach history without special methods analysis, thereby engaging in a mechanical reconstruction of events, rather than actual analysis (the ongoing analysis must be questioned due to ignorance of the methodology of special disciplines), but this is very useful for other sciences;
b) the knowledge received by traditional historians is largely useless for us, because we have not yet answered the question: how can they be adequately applied to modern times (this question requires scientific and methodological development, and not a superficial answer).
P.S. Of course, not all historians correspond to the above. There are also pleasant exceptions. But we have few of them in Russia.
P.P.S Plus, history can perform another important function for the country: ideological and patriotic education (and also form the basis of collective memory), but this (by and large) does not require serious and in-depth research (often, they are dangerous) - enough myths. Most historians disagree.
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 still exist today: 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 develops 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, and 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 XX 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, in connection with which information about them has come down to us either according to archeology or 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.
Topic 29. Characteristics of the state of historical science in Russia at the present stage.
1. Entry of the Russian historical community into world historical science. Generality of problems.
2. Rupture and continuity of Russian and Soviet historical science.
3. Development of theoretical and methodological issues.
4. Topics, issues, directions and prospects of modern historical research in Russia.
Literature:
Dashkova T. Gender issues: approaches to description.//Historical research in Russia - II. Seven years later / Ed. G.A. Bordyugov. – M.: AIRO-XX, 2003.S.203-245.
Historical research in Russia: trends in recent years. M., 1996//Edited by G.A. Bordyugov.
History of everyday life: Collection scientific works. SPb., 2003.
Krom M.M. Historical anthropology. SPb., 2004.
Krom M. National history from an anthropological perspective. .//Historical research in Russia - II. Seven years later / Ed. G.A. Bordyugov. – M.: AIRO-XX, 2003.S. 179-202.
Kravtsov V.N. Transformation of the foundations of the professionalism of historical knowledge in the modern historiographic process.// Images of historiography: Collection of articles / Nauchn. ed. A.P. Logunov. M.: RGGU, 2000.
Myths and mythology in modern Russia/ Under the editorship of K. Aimermacher, F. Bomsdorf, G. Bordyugov. M., 2003.
Naumova G.R. Historiography of the history of Russia: textbook. allowance for students. Higher educational institutions / G.R. Naumova, A.E. Shiklo. M., 2009. pp.225-240.
Sokolov A.K. The path to a modern laboratory for studying the modern history of Russia.//History and philosophy of Russian historical science. M., 2007. S.275-341
Chubaryan A.O. Historical Science in Russia at the Beginning of the 21st Century // New and Contemporary History 2003. No. 3.
1. What do you think shows the gap and continuity of Russian and Soviet historical science?
2. How are modern Russian and foreign historical sciences connected?
3. What theoretical and methodological issues are being developed by modern Russian historians?
4. Describe the themes, problems, directions and prospects of modern historical research in Russia.
Topic 30. BN Mironov.
1. "The social history of Russia in the period of the empire" as the first generalizing study of social history in world historiography.
2.Methodology of the study of the social history of Russia.
3. Modernization concept of the history of Russia B.N. Mironov.
4. Revision B.N. Mironov of the well-established provisions of Soviet historiography about the role of the autocracy in social changes, about its connection with the public, etc.
Literature:
Getrel P., Macy D., Freese G. Social history as metahistory.// Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003., vol. 1, pp. I – XIV.
Discussion around the "Social history of Russia in the period of the empire." // Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003., v. 1, p. XV-XL.
Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. - St. Petersburg: "Dmitry Bulanin", 2003.
Control tasks, problem questions and exercises:
1. What methodological approaches and principles does Mironov use to study the social history of Russia? What is the advantage of these approaches and principles and what is their limitation?
2. What are the main provisions of the concept of the history of Russia B.N. Mironov. What are the features of the history of Russia and features of modernization in Russia?
3. What well-established provisions of Soviet historiography are refuted by BN Mironov? Read one of the chapters of the "Social History of Russia" and analyze how B.N. Mironov achieves a revision of traditional ideas.
4. What are the causes and nature of the October Revolution according to the concept of B.N. Mironov?
5. How does BN Mironov characterize and evaluate Soviet modernization?
6. What are the prospects for the historical development of Russia from the standpoint of the historical concept of BN Mironov?
7. What ideas of pre-revolutionary Russian, Soviet, post-Soviet and foreign historians does the author of the Social History of Russia rely on?
Boris Nikolaevich Mironov
Biographical information. B. N. Mironov in 1959 entered the Faculty of Economics of St. Petersburg state university. In 1961, he was expelled from the university for anti-Marxist views. In the same year, the rector of the university A.D. Alexandrov restored as a student at the Faculty of History. After graduating from the history department in 1965, he served in the army. In 1966 he entered the graduate school of the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History of the USSR. In 1969 he defended his Ph.D. thesis, in 1984 his doctoral thesis. Since 1970 he has been working at the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and teaching at St. Petersburg universities and abroad. Author of seven books and over one hundred articles, many of which have been published abroad.
"The social history of Russia in the period of the empire (XVIII - early XX century) The genesis of the individual, the democratic family, civil society and the rule of law." The main scientific work of B.N. Mironov is devoted to social history. The so-called "new social history" refers to the research arsenal of sociology in describing the internal state of society, its individual groups and relations between them. She was born in the second half of the 20th century.
Approaches borrowed from anthropology and social psychology. An integral component of the analysis social system the reconstruction of a picture of the world or a set of images, ideas, values that guided the behavior of members of a particular social group becomes characteristic of a given human community.
Particular attention in social history is paid to the content side of the consciousness of people who form social reality by their actions. Therefore, social history is still the history of mentalities. Under mentalities, as B.N. Mironov, social and psychological stereotypes, automatisms of consciousness and habits laid down by upbringing and cultural traditions, value orientations, meaningful representations and views that do not belong to individuals, but to one or another estate or social group.
One of the guiding principles of social history has become interdisciplinarity: "the use of concepts, concepts and methodology of sociology, political economy, geography, anthropology, psychology, demography, statistics, political science."
Social history does not describe events in their sequence. Social history analyzes predominantly enduring social structures, systems, institutions, long-term social processes and phenomena. Society is considered as an integral organism in which all elements interact in a complex system of resonant, direct and feedback, excluding the possibility of reduction and finding any one that can determine the entire historical development. Social history is based on a structuralist approach. Mironov follows him and builds a model and interprets the fundamental processes and forces that changed Russian society and the state during the imperial period. The study consists of two parts: – the first deals with social dynamics, the second – with law, the state and civil society. At the same time, he finds in the development of Russia "a certain degree of historical inevitability" (progress), but does not indicate specifically what controls this process.
Social history is comprehended and conceptualized in the spirit of modernization. Mironov is not limited to the period of the empire and gives a meta-description Russian history to demonstrate her "normality". Revealing models in the social development of certain areas of demography, family structure, etc. the author shows that Russia, though with some delay, followed general scheme development characteristic of Western Europe.
The fact that Russia lags behind Western Europe, according to Mironov, does not at all mean that it is a backward country. Mironov notes that psychologists have the concept of a “socially neglected child.” This child was born normal, but in a difficult family. Poor parents drank, they did not take care of the child, so his development was slowed down. Mental development the child is late and at school he cannot cope with the program. But under favorable circumstances, a socially neglected child can catch up with the bulk of his peers, but not the best. According to Mironov, to say that Russia is a backward country is the same as to call it a socially neglected child. So in Kiev time, the Rusichs were normal Europeans, but in the middle of the 13th century. for 250 years she fell into the difficult conditions of the Mongol-Tatar yoke (difficult childhood). Freed from the yoke, Russia fell under serfdom for 250 years (difficult adolescence). This slowed everything down and made Russia underdeveloped, which cannot catch up with peers from Western European countries. Mironov does not agree with this approach.
The historian says that Russia is belatedly going through the same processes, but not because it is mentally retarded or socially neglected, but because Russia as a state and civilization was simply born later than Western European ones. Already Kievan Rus was not a feudal state in the European sense of the term. Feudal features appeared a few centuries later in the XIII-XVI centuries. But Russia has always, at least for the last thousand years, when statehood arose, fled as fast as its neighbors in the West. Therefore, the scientist argues: Russia is not backward, but a young and rapidly growing country, and comparing it with Western Europe is the same as comparing an adult and a teenager.
Mironov insists on the inconsistency of the idea of the originality of the historical development of Russia. Despite periodic crises and deviations, from the point of view of BN Mironov, Russia as a whole followed the road of modernization together with the West.
The main difference between Russia and Europe lies in the asynchrony of development, and not in the essence of the development process. The autocracy sought to speed up the process of development and introduced incredible tension into social life. This was also the case in the implementation Soviet project modernization.
The scientist gives a favorable forecast regarding the future of Russia, if it continues its development according to the Western European model and in due time achieves prosperity and the rule of law and civil society are established.
The author strives, avoiding both negativism and apologetics regarding national achievements, to revise many provisions and myths national historiography, not distinguished by positive attitude towards our history. Particularly unlucky in our historiography, as Mironov emphasizes, Russian reformers and government policy. Their achievements were underestimated and even depreciated. For example: the abolition of serfdom in 1861 is not considered an achievement, since in Western Europe it happened several centuries earlier and better. Mironov proposes to take a broader and deeper look at this problem, from the point of view of the correspondence of state policy to the economic, social, psychological and other possibilities of society. And also think about what would happen if the Western European model were implemented in Russia. Moreover, Mironov sees the reasons for the negative assessments of his own history in the fact that they were created in the era of the struggle of society against the authoritarianism of state power in the name of establishing a legal society and state in Russia back in pre-revolutionary historiography and then were picked up by Soviet historiography. The historian notes: nihilistic sentiments among the intelligentsia have always been in vogue in Russia (here there is a clear analogy between Mironov’s idea and the thoughts of the so-called “conservative” historians on this matter), it was and is still considered good form to condemn Russian orders and history, even if there is no reason for this.
Mironov refutes the position that:
Russia was a typical colonial empire that oppressed the peoples inhabiting it.
Russian society was closed.
The Russians did not know self-government.
Serfdom blocked the socio-economic development of the country.
Russia was ruled not by laws, but by people.
The state and the bureaucracy did not care about society and the people.
All or almost all of the reforms failed.
Autocracy in the XVIII - XX century. was an institution that hindered the development of the country.
Arbitrariness reigned in the courts.
The author writes that social institutions became more “rational”, more and more relied on certain legal norms, and not on custom and tradition. narrow and limited social interaction changed to more open and wide. Real merit, not privilege, became the basis for promotion. The personality was given greater opportunities for its manifestation, individuals successfully asserted their dignity and protested against the interference of the corporation in their personal lives, whether this interference was based on the power of the patriarch within the extended family or on the power of the traditional land community. Or other corporate institutions.
Autocracy was positive and driving force social changes in the country, going, as a rule, ahead of society. The autocracy for the most part worked in cooperation with the public. Basically, during the imperial period, the process of modernization was successful. At the beginning of the twentieth century. Russia has become a legal de jure state, and civil society was in the process of formation. Why did the autocratic state not survive the First World War. The fact is that modernization was successfully promoted with the leading role of the state, and was held back by the people, who also participated in this process, but their mentality changed extremely slowly. This widened the gap between the Europeanized elite and the people and created asynchrony and tension in social processes and phenomena. The revolution, from Mironov's point of view, was a natural phenomenon. Revolution is a normal, even positive reaction, as a temporary social disaster of modernization, designed to harmonize traditional Russian values with those of a market economy. October Revolution was not the Marxist progressive revolution that the revolutionaries believed they were fighting for, but rather a revolution against modernization and in defense of tradition. However, the Soviet government continued the process of modernization and created conditions that ensured a peaceful transition to the final stage of modernization, the formation of an open and democratic society.
Specialists are amazed by the huge source base of the book. The author relies on the methodology and achievements of pre-revolutionary Russian, Soviet, post-Soviet, American, Canadian, Australian and European scientists, as well as on his own research on a wide range of problems in Russian archives and libraries. The scientist mastered the array of accumulated data on the social history of Russia and creatively processed them on the basis of his own concept. Mironov is fluent in cliometry and provides extensive statistical data. His work has an unparalleled scientific apparatus, including footnotes, bibliography in alphabetical order, subject and index of names, illustrations, tables.
However, one should not forget that the modernization model is one of the possible ones in representing the dynamics of society. It tends to view the past through the prism of dichotomies tradition/modernity, static/mobility, which does not limit understanding and minimizes the search for the uniqueness of Russia's historical development. In addition, even foreign experts note that the concept of "normality" of Russia's historical development is in perilous proximity to the absolutization of Western European and American standards of political and social development. It is not axiomatic that this Western model is desirable and has a long life ahead of it.
1. The state of historical consciousness and the historical and scientific community of Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
2. Petersburg and Moscow schools of historians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
3. D.I. Ilovaisky (scientific interests, methodological orientations, the general concept of Russian history, etc.)
4. The phenomenon of N.I. Kostomarov in Russian historiography.
5. V.O. Klyuchevsky. Main works and ideas.
6. V.O. Klyuchevsky about the subject and method of historical knowledge.
7. V.O. Klyuchevsky. "The course of Russian history and its concept". The concept of the history of Russia.
8. History Russia XIX in. in the works of A.A. Kornilov.
9. Vlad in historical science A.A. Kiesevetter.
10. P.N. Milyukov as a public figure and historian. Continuity and novelty in his historical and scientific work. The history of Russia as the history of Russian culture.
11. S.F. Platonov Features of personality and historical and scientific creativity.
12. S.F. Platonov "Lectures on Russian history" (theoretical, methodological and conceptual foundations).
13. S.F. Platonov. The concept of the history of the Time of Troubles in Russia.
14. A.E. Presnyakov as a representative of scientific realism.
15. Proceedings of A.E. Presnyakov on the history of Kievan Rus, the Great Russian state.
16. Eurocentrism in the concept of Russian history E.F. Shmurlo
17. The study of feudalism in the works of N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky.
18. Contribution of N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky. in the study of the history of the social movement.
19. Masters of the biographical genre in historical research - N.K. Schilder and Grand Duke Nikolay Mikhailovich.
20. Historian-diplomat S.S. Tatishchev.
21. The historical concept of K.N. Leontiev.
22. The historical concept of L.A. Tikhomirov.
23. Methodology and philosophy of history in the works of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.
24. The historical concept of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.
25. Development of theoretical and methodological foundations of source studies by A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.
26. Marxism and pre-revolutionary historical science.
27. "Legal Marxism". Dispute about the role of violence in history. P.B. Struve, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky and others.
28. "Subjective school" in Russian historiography. P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky and others.
29. Historiosophy V.S. Solovyov.
30. N.I. Berdyaev as a representative of the religious and philosophical paradigm of history.
31. The Eurasian concept of Russian history (G.V. Vernadsky, N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitsky, R.O. Yakobson)
32. general characteristics historical science in the Soviet period.
a. Periodization of the historical science of the Soviet period.
33. Secular historical science in the 1920s-1930s.
34. sociological method studies of the historical process in the works of N.A. Rozhkov.
35. M.N. Pokrovsky and his role in the formation of the Marxist image of historical science.
36. B.D. Grekov, M.N. Tikhomirov, L.V. Cherepnin as researchers of the history of ancient and medieval Russia.
37. M.N. Druzhinin as a researcher peasant question in Russia.
38. A.L. Sidorov. The personality of the historian and the priorities of scientific research.
39. M.V. Nechkin. Contribution to the study of the revolutionary movement, the history of historical science and the popularization of historical knowledge.
40. P.A. Zaionchkovsky. Themes and features of the historian's work.
41. I.D. Kovalchenko is a methodologist, source expert, historian-researcher.
42. L.N. Gumilev. The theory of ethnogenesis and the concept of the history of Russia.
43. Domestic historiography of the second half of the 80s - early 90s.
44. Current state historical science in Russia.
45. B.N. Mironov. Social history of Russia.
46. I.Ya. Froyanov is a researcher of ancient and medieval Russia. Works on the modern history of Russia.
Trans… (from lat. trans- through, through, behind) the first part of compound words meaning here: 1). Movement through any space, crossing it; 2). The designation of transmission through the medium of something. The second part compound word"form" means that the correspondence of manifestations of the same features or various signs in the same manifestations is carried out through and in a new configuration of connections, the highest configuration of which is Meaning.
The disintegration of the "holistic personality" occurs not only as a result of a normatively and procedurally organized technique of thinking, but also as a result of the specialization and technologization of material production. The issue of turning a person into an appendage of a machine under conditions of differentiated capitalist production was actively discussed by representatives of the “subjective school” (P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, N.I. Kareev, etc.). Mikhailovsky likened a narrow specialist to a “toe” .
See Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of creativity. - Kharkov: Folio, M .: AST, 2002. P. 36.
In the states of coexistence, the representative, holistic and world-forming connection acts as a being born, emerging and being formed.
In Russian philosophy, the idea of a break in continuity was put forward by representatives of the Moscow philosophical and mathematical school in the theory of arrhythmology long before M. Foucault. In the sphere of thinking, arrhythmology, in contrast to analytics, manifests itself in a creative act - insight, intuitive grasp of meaning, in the social sphere - in catastrophes, revolutions, upheavals that interrupt linear evolution. Arrhythmology can be understood as the emergence of new impulsive centers with their inherent rhythms, the redistribution of energy and a new tuning of rhythms in general.
In Western historiography, the primacy in the conceptual design of the principle of multifactorial historical development belongs to the French historical school "Annals".
Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history / L.P. Karsavin. - St. Petersburg: AO Kit. 2003. P.31.
Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history / L.P. Karsavin. - St. Petersburg: AO Kit. 2003.S.97-98.
Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian History: A Complete Course of Lectures. T.1. / V.O. Klyuchevsky - Minsk: Harvest, 2003. P.16.
See Leontieva O.B. Marxism in Russia at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Problems of methodology of history and theory of historical process / O.B. Leontiev. - Samara: Samara University Publishing House, 2004.
In exile, Russian scientists came up with the concept of Eurasianism.
Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of history. New Middle Ages / N.A. Berdyaev. – M.: 2002. P.183.
They themselves put forward ethical criterion progress, thereby emphasizing the role of mental states in the dynamics of social reality.
See Rumyantseva M.F. Theory of history / M.F. Rumyantsev. - M.: Aspect Press, 2002. S.23-30.
See Koposov N.E. Stop killing cats! Criticism social sciences/ NOT. Koposov. - M .: New Literary Review, 2005. P. 142-157.
Various versions of a non-linear "global" or "total" history are proposed by representatives of the Annales school.
It should be noted that ideological and political views and knowledge, like any other, are necessarily included in the context of the historian's free and spontaneous activity. However, purposeful normative conduct ideological and political attitudes in historical research reduces its scientific potential.
Ilovaisky was married twice. He buried his first wife and all the children from his first marriage. The last to die in 1890 was the daughter of Varvara, in the marriage of Tsvetaeva. Son-in-law of Ilovaisky I.V. Tsvetaev married a second time. and in this marriage M.I. Tsvetaeva was born.
Similar information.
In fact, by now it has formed and requires its permission problem area national historiography.
In ideological terms Russian historiography is split into Western (liberal) and national-powerful, social-democratic and other “left” paradigms of the development of explaining the past. Each of them includes a large set of theories.
Liberal theory in modern Russian historiography is quite contradictory and has its own Russian logic of application. Discussions within this theory are not accidental. For example, "The State and Evolution" by E. Gaidar and "Russian Statehood" by Akhiezer and Ilyin. Gaidar's main thesis is that private property is the foundation of the state's liberal policy. The core of A. Akhiezer's theory is the assertion that historically the Russian state and society are stuck in a state of "split".
Today we can state the onset of a new wave of conservatism in Russian social thought and Russian historiography. It came as a reaction to the political processes in Russia, the beginning of which dates back to the second half of the 1980s. It is characterized by three generic features: anti-Westernism, upholding the ideals of Orthodoxy and the norms of social community arising from it, the ideal of a powerful centralized state. (M. Nazarov, L. Borodin, E. Volodin, Metropolitan John, A. Dugin, I. Shafarevich, A. Gulyga, S. Kurginyan, V. Kozhinov and others) on issues of attitude towards Russian emigration, Russian statehood and socialist past.
The national-power paradigm, like the liberal one, has no less dispersion. (N. Narochnitskaya "On Russia and Russians", A. Panarin "Strategies of Instability". Institute of Sociology of the Russian Academy of Sciences - O. Yanitsky. "Sociology of Risks", Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences (T. Oizerman. "Marxism and Utopianism").
Institute for Socio-Political Studies Russian Academy Sciences (ISPI RAS) and its director, corresponding member of the RAS V. Kuznetsov and his team put forward and substantiated the ideological manifesto of Russian sovereignty, as well as comprehensive program formation of the ideology of power. Leading in modern domestic historiography modern history Russia is striving to justify "special way of Russia", single out Russia as a special civilization and isolate it beyond the limits of the laws inherent in historical development West. The literature in this direction is extremely numerous.
I note the heterogeneity of this direction.
An alternative to the idea of a special path for the development of Russia, Russia as a special civilization, is the concept of totalitarianism in Russian contemporary literature, which goes back to the works of L. von Mises, L. Shapiro, M. Finesod, R. Pipes, E. Carrer d "Encausse, R. Conquest, published many times in Russia and their domestic followers. In our domestic historiography, the idea of totalitarianism has become certain stage politically almost official. These are the works of A.N. Yakovleva, D.A. Volkogonov, Yu.N. Afanasiev. She gets into huge number in educational literature, the works “Totalitarianism in Europe of the 20th century. History of Ideology, Movements, Regimes”, prepared by the Institute of World History, etc.
The theory of totalitarianism quickly became outdated and, due to its obviously ideological fuse, ceased to work. The appearance of the direction of the so-called "revisionists" was logical, they were forced to state the discrepancy between the theoretical concepts of totalitarianism and the realities of Russian history. The next concept that has become widespread in explaining the modern history of Russia is modernization theory. The founders of this school - W. Rostow, S. Aizenshtadt and others proceeded from the idea of spreading the values of liberalism in the world.
The theory of modernization, getting into a new qualitative environment - post-Soviet Russia - acquired new methodological features, in particular, about the "civilizational originality of Russian modernizations". It should be recognized the achievements in the national historiography of the history of modern Russia in works on stories of everyday life. This direction, historiographically associated with the Annals School, was continued in studies on the social history of modernity (the works of A.K. Sokolov, A.V. Shubin, S.V. Zhuravlev, E.Yu. Zubkova, M.R. Zezina , V.A. Kozlova).
Functionally Russian historiography is also split. On the one hand, it seems to be in demand: we see how intensively the historical past is exploited by politicians, how historical plots are “woven” into the texts of other humanities, as a result of which subject areas various disciplines. On the other hand, knowledge about this past is pushed to the periphery liberal education. History as a profession is not prestigious.
The contradictions between the real use of the historical narrative in different areas and the real low-status state in the system of the humanities are obvious. The reason is the political attitude towards the technocracy of practical politics, which excludes the significance of historical knowledge for the modernization of the country. This happens because the previous period of Russian history - the Soviet one - is considered mainly in the liberal version, and also because in the world humanitarian space dominated by postmodern ideas about history as a literary literary product of the subject in the subjectivist space of time.
In the content In terms of the state of historical science, it is characterized by a tendency towards descriptiveness, pettiness, and a decrease in the level of conceptual generalizations. The paradigm of historical knowledge has changed. The disclosure of history as a concept has been replaced by its presentation as information.
Levels of historical research - the dominance of microhistory over macrohistory. Intradisciplinary multi-topics: History of everyday life. Gender and oral history. Demographic and ecological history. Intellectual history, etc.
3) Russian historical science lags behind the modernization tasks of Russian society and education reforms. Why? First, there is a generational “gap” in the corporation of historians. The “departure” of a generation of Soviet-type scientists, the reorganization of faculties, various reasons, the devaluation of history as a profession in the conditions of market relations, the absence of a commercial component of the profession of history itself - destroyed the very "being" of the discipline. The realization of this and the adoption of measures to modernize historical science is one of the realities that characterize it.
Secondly, the “collision” with Western historiography, the active inclusion of new theories, schemes, ideas, terms into the arsenal, basically did not lead to the birth of its own new research concepts, but turned Russian historical science into a “production for processing” old theories for the West. .
Thirdly, the formation of “new historiographies” in the post-Soviet space has put on the agenda the question of the reaction of Russian historians to criticism and nihilism in relation to the entire legacy of Soviet historical science, to the often unreasonable priorities of only the national-ethnic heritage.
Fourth, the uncertainty of the status of historical science in the context of the evolution of the system historical education and development university science as an equal academic science. Consequently, the study of the University as a carrier and producer of historical knowledge, as a "factory" for the production of new generations of humanists capable of fulfilling their social tasks.
I would like to note such an important area of work as writing the history of the Russian State University for the Humanities, and for this, an analysis of the intellectual product that it produces (degree and dissertation research, their practical significance, publications in scientific journals, the activities of the Russian State University for the Humanities in the media, demand on the labor market), others in words - a "portrait" of the Russian State University for the Humanities as a subject of the educational and scientific space of modern Russia.
The self-identification of the university corporation of historians is necessary, the definition of the line further development historical education - the main mechanism for the reproduction of the scientific community - is our contribution to the policy and practice of modernizing the country.
Fifth , the role and significance of regional historiography as a historiographic phenomenon is not fully understood. This cultural projection of all-Russian historiography and at the same time a structure that has its own problematic field of historical research is a regional community of historians of the region, scientific schools and directions, the system of historical institutions, the training of historians, research projects, local sources, archives and library collections, scientific communications, forms of communication; public interest in history in the local socio-cultural environment, forms of organization and activities of amateur historians, interconnection professional science with the community of non-professional researchers, support for historical science by the regional administration, “regional patronage”, etc. To purchase the drug Toximin, you do not need to go to the pharmacy - the drug is not available for free sale. The only purchase option is to place an order via the Internet from official representatives and receive it by mail.
The task of historical science in the extrapolation of knowledge about the past to the present. The imperative of historical knowledge: based on the experience of the past, explain the present, predict and build the future in accordance with the understanding achieved. And for this you need general historical theory. How can it be worked out in the conditions of methodological pluralism and ideological disputes?
Finally, factors in the direction of the development of Russian historiography is the social order from the state, the opposition, various political forces. The cardinal problem of historiography is on the agenda: what does national history look like? Russian state And does she even have a right to be? This problem has clearly manifested itself since the mid-1990s, when the authorities set the task of finding a national idea on the way of Russia's advancement towards the planned market economy and a Western-style society. Russian historians have joined in its search. It has been acknowledged that, to use the words of the French specialist in modern nations Ernest Renan, "Oblivion ... a distorted perception of one's own history is an essential factor in the formation of a nation" Russian historians began to develop the problems of national history and faced the need to solve them together with political scientists, answering the question “Is it possible to seriously talk about “national history” as a scientific discipline in the multinational country of Russia?”
And again myths began to arise, about which Foucault wrote as the inevitability of national histories. At the same time, some authoritative researchers suggest "forgetting about the nation." In parallel, there is a negative trend towards a return to the former "republican history", for example, "History of Tatarstan".
The current situation in the Russian media was called the "war of stories", which in the form of " cold war' continues to this day. The very fact of the emergence of alternative interpretations of history is destroying a single federal information field.
Today we must acknowledge that historical heritage- this, along with language, religion and culture, is the most important element of national consolidation, and for its study, the creation of a comprehensive program is required.
Apparently, one should not neglect the achievements of the Soviet era, for example, in the field of the same source study, or scientific results the Moscow-Tartus school of "semiotics of culture", which developed an interesting methodology for studying cultural structures as symbolic systems of social representations.
Completely oblivious theoretical basis analysis of Russian realities. Historians have not developed any independent concept of studying the peculiar development post-Soviet Russia. Basically, there are attempts to “fit” this period of history under the models of “theory of democratization”, “transitology”, “conflictology”, “theory of elites”, etc.
Summing up, I will say that the most important condition for the development of historical science as a science is the improvement of teaching history at the historical departments of universities, the development of new directions in methodology, methodology, increased attention to the history of philosophy, increased attention to historiography courses. Another most important condition for the development of Russian historical science is the formation of a new culture of source research, its conditioning by the new realities of the modern world.
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 issue 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 until 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, creating the basis for subsequent development, expanding university geography, creating 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 the social life of the country, calls 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 period of reaction that began in the next decade, a number of authors, 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 student protests took place at that time and conservative leaders 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 charter, 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 Public 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, and domestic scientific schools began to form in a number of universities. 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 the social institutions of 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 examining the formation and development of the Russian university system in the 19th century, depending on the turns of government policy, last years a number of articles on the history of higher education appear, 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.