Modern historical science. "Golden Age" of the Empire
Historiography of the history of Russia - it is a description of Russian history and historical literature. This is the history of historical science as a whole, its branch, the totality of studies devoted to a particular era, topic.
Scientific coverage of Russian history begins in the 18th century, when knowledge about the past, previously contained in the form of scattered information, began to be systematized and generalized. Historical science was freed from divine providence and received an ever more realistic explanation.
The first scientific work on the history of Russia belonged to Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev(1686-1750) - the largest noble historian of the era of Peter I. His capital work "Russian History from the Most Ancient Times" in 5 volumes covered the history of the Russian state.
Speaking as a champion of a strong monarchy, V.N. Tatishchev was the first to formulate the state scheme of Russian history, highlighting several of its stages: from perfect "autocracy" (from Rurik to Mstislav), through the "aristocracy of the specific period" (1132-1462) to "restoration of the monarchy under John the Great III and strengthening it under Peter I in early XVIII century."
Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov(1711 - 1765) - the author of a number of works on Russian history ("A Brief Russian Chronicler with Genealogy"; "Ancient Russian History"), in which he laid the foundation for the struggle against the Norman theory of the formation of the ancient Russian state. This theory, as is known, was created by the Germans Bayer and Miller and substantiated the inability of the allegedly ignorant Slavs to create their own statehood and the Varangians who called for this.
M.V. Lomonosov cited a number of arguments that refuted the conjectures of German scientists. He proved the antiquity of the "Rus" tribe, which preceded the calling of Rurik, showed the originality of the settlements of the Slavs in Eastern Europe. The scientist drew attention to important fact: the name "Rus" was extended to those Slavic tribes to which the Varangians had nothing to do. M.V. Lomonosov pointed out the absence of Scandinavian and Germanic words in the Russian language, which would have been inevitable given the role attributed by the Normanists to the Scandinavians.
The first major work on the history of the Russian state belonged to Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin(1766-1826) - a prominent historian, writer and publicist. At the end of 1803, Karamzin offered Alexander I his services for writing complete history Russia, "not barbaric and shameful for his reign." The offer was accepted. Karamzin was officially entrusted with writing the history of Russia and a pension was established as being in the public service. Karamzin devoted his entire subsequent life mainly to the creation of the History of the Russian State (12 volumes). The central idea of labor: autocratic rule is the best form of statehood for Russia.
Karamzin put forward the idea that "Russia was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from discord and was saved by wise autocracy." This approach was the basis for the periodization of the history of the Russian state.
In it, the scientist identified six periods:
- "the introduction of monarchical power" - from the "calling of the princes of the Varangians" to Svyatopolk Vladimirovich (862-1015);
- "fading of autocracy" - from Svyatopolk Vladimirovich to Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich (1015-1238);
- “the death of the Russian state and the gradual “state revival of Russia” - from Yaroslav 11 Vsevolodovich to Ivan 111 (1238-1462);
- "assertion of autocracy" - from Ivan III to Ivan IV (1462-1533);
- the restoration of "tsarist autocracy" and the transformation of autocracy into tyranny - from Ivan IV (the Terrible) to Boris Godunov (1533-1598);
- « Time of Troubles"- from Boris Godunov to Mikhail Romanov (1598-1613)".
Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov(1820-1879) - head of the department of Russian history at Moscow University (since 1845), author of a kind of encyclopedia of Russian history, a multi-volume capital work "The History of Russia from Ancient Times". The principle of his research is historicism. He does not divide the history of Russia into periods, but connects them, considers the development of Russia and Western Europe in unity. Soloviev reduces the pattern of development of the country to three defining conditions: “the nature of the country”, “the nature of the tribe”, “the course of external events”.
In periodization, the scientist “erases” the concepts of the “Varangian period”, “Mongolian” and specific.
The first stage of Russian history from ancient times to the 16th century. inclusive is determined by the struggle of the "patrimonial principle" through "patrimonial relations" to the "state way of life".
The second stage (XVII - the middle of the XVII century) - "preparation" for a new order of things and "the era of Peter I", "the era of transformations".
The third stage (the second half of the 17th - the second half of the 19th century) is a direct continuation and completion of Peter's reforms.
In the 50s. 19th century the state (legal) school in Russian historiography took shape. It was a product of bourgeois liberalism, its unwillingness to repeat the revolutions of the West in Russia. In this regard, the liberals turned to the ideal of strong state power. The founder of the state school was a professor at Moscow University (lawyer, historian, idealist philosopher) Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin (1828-1904).
Major Russian, historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky(1841 - 1911) adhered to the positivist "theory of facts". He singled out "three main forces that build human community": the human personality, human society, the nature of the country. Klyuchevsky considered "intellectual labor and moral feat" to be the engine of historical progress. In the development of Russia, Klyuchevsky recognized the huge role of the state (political factor), attached great importance the process of colonization (natural factor), trade (economic factor).
In The Course of Russian History, Klyuchevsky gave a periodization of the country's past. It is based on geographical, economic and social characteristics, which, in his opinion, determined the content of historical periods. However, they were dominated by the state scheme.
All Russian historical process- from ancient times to the reforms of the 60s. 19th century Klyuchevsky divided into four periods:
- "Rusdneprovskaya, city, trade" (from the 8th to the 13th centuries). In the first period, the main arena of activity of the Slavs was the Dnieper region. The author did not connect the emergence of the state among the Eastern Slavs with the Normans, noting the existence of their principalities long before the appearance of the Varangians;
- "Rus of the Upper Volga, specific-princely, free-agricultural" (XII - the middle of the XV century). Describing the second period, Klyuchevsky idealized princely power, exaggerated its organizing role;
- "Great Russia. Moscow, tsarist-boyar, military-agricultural" (XV - early XVII century). The third period of Russian history is associated with Great Russia, covering vast expanses of not only Eastern Europe, but also Asia. At this time, for the first time, a stable state unification of Russia was created;
- "All-Russian, imperial, noble" - the period of serfdom - agricultural and factory (XVII - the middle of the XIX century). This is the time for the further expansion of Great Russia, the formation of the Russian Empire. The transformations of Peter I were considered by the author as the main feature of this period, but Klyuchevsky showed duality in their assessment. Klyuchevsky influenced the formation of historical views of both bourgeois historians (P.N. Milyukov, M.M. Bogoslovsky, A.A. Kizevetter), and Marxist historians (M.N. Pokrovsky, Yu.V. Gotye, S. .V. Bakhrushin).
In Soviet historiography, periodization was based on the formational approach, according to which the following were singled out in Russian history:
- Primitive communal system (until the 9th century).
- Feudalism (IX - mid-XIX century).
- Capitalism (second half of the 19th century - 1917).
- Socialism (since 1917).
Within the framework of these formational periods of national history, certain stages were singled out, revealing the process of the emergence and development of a socio-economic formation.
Thus, the "feudal" period was divided into three stages:
- "early feudalism" (Kievan Rus);
- "developed feudalism" (feudal fragmentation and the formation of the Russian centralized state);
- "late feudalism" ("new period of Russian history", the disintegration and crisis of feudal-serf relations).
The period of capitalism was divided into two stages - "pre-monopoly capitalism" and "imperialism". In Soviet history, the stages of "war communism", "new economic policy", "building the foundations of socialism", "complete and final victory of socialism" and "development of socialism on its own basis" were distinguished.
In the post-perestroika period, in connection with the transition to a pluralistic interpretation of Russian history, there was a reassessment of both its individual events and entire periods and stages. In this regard, on the one hand, there is a return to the periodizations of Solovyov, Klyuchevsky and other pre-revolutionary historians, on the other hand, attempts are being made to give a periodization in accordance with new values and methodological approaches.
Thus, a periodization of national history appeared from the point of view of the alternative historical development of it, considered in the context of world history.
Some historians suggest distinguishing two periods in Russian history:
- "From ancient Russia to Imperial Russia"(IX - XVIII centuries);
- "The heyday and decline of the Russian Empire" (XIX - XX centuries).
Historians Russian statehood allocate ten of her
periods. This periodization is due to several factors. The main ones are the socio-economic structure of society (the level of economic and technical development, forms of ownership) and the factor of state development:
- Ancient Russia (IX-XII centuries);
- Period of independent feudal states Ancient Russia(XII-XV centuries);
- Russian (Moscow) state (XV-XVII centuries);
- Russian empire the period of absolutism (XVIII - the middle of the XIX century);
- Russian Empire during the period of transition to a bourgeois monarchy (mid-19th - early 20th centuries);
- Russia during the period of the bourgeois-democratic republic (February - October 1917);
- The period of the formation of Soviet statehood (1918-1920);
- The transition period and the NEP period (1921 - 1930);
- The period of state-party socialism (1930 - early 60s of the XX century);
- The period of the crisis of socialism (60-90s of the XX century).
This periodization, like any other, is conditional, but it allows us to systematize the training course to a certain extent and consider the main stages in the formation of statehood in Russia.
Historical science has accumulated extensive experience in creating works on the history of Russia. Numerous works published in different years both in the country and abroad reflect a variety of concepts historical development Russia, its relationship with the world historical process.
Per last years fundamental works on the history of Russia by major pre-revolutionary historians were republished, including the works of S.M. Solovieva, N.M. Karamzin, V.O. Klyuchevsky and others. The works of B.A. Rybakova, B.D. Grekova, S.D. Bakhrusheva, M.N. Tikhomirova, M.P. Pokrovsky, A.N. Sakharova, Yu.N. Afanasiev and others. This list can be continued.
Today we have at our disposal works on the history of Russia, interesting in content, which are available to anyone who is interested in history and seeks to study it in depth.
It must be borne in mind that the study of the history of the Fatherland must take place in the context of world history. Students of history should understand such concepts as historical civilizations, their characteristic features, the place of individual formations in the world historical process, the ways of Russia's development and its place in the world historical process.
Studying the history of Russia in the context of world historical processes, it is necessary to take into account that the traditional idea of abroad has changed radically today. The historical reality is such that we are faced with such concepts as "near abroad" and "far abroad". In the recent past, these distinctions did not exist.
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 fields 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, in connection with scientific progress, genetic genealogy using human DNA analysis has been 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 the teaching of 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, i.e., the entire complex of principles and methods within which historical research. 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). Special historical methods include:
- 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 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. selected 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.
§ Perform chronological division historical life stages, eras, 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 through the path of development from the tribal system to the feudal system (serfdom) and up to the 20th century, Russia, like many countries of Western and of Eastern Europe did not know any other form of government except as a monarchy - a form of government in which the supreme state power partially or completely belongs to 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 in early XIX in. 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 and 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 personality, 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. In recent years, the desire of our historians to cover the past from the position of a civilizational approach has been 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 was rewritten and The World History, brought up generations 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: for a predetermined theoretical concept, suitable historical facts.
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 trend. 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 methods research:
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.
MODERN HISTORICAL SCIENCE: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS
MODERN HISTORICAL SCIENCE: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS
V. V. Grishin, N. S. Shilovskaya
The article is devoted to the problem of searching for historical truth. Historical science of the XX-XXI centuries. falls under the influence of ideologies and ideolologisms, which sometimes makes history sophistical and leads to the substitution of historical truth for historical opinion. Historical relativism is one of the acute problems of teaching history. Does history as a science have perspectives and what are they?
Key words: history, science, historical existence, knowledge, truth.
V. V. Grishin, N. S. Shilovskaya
The article is devoted to the problem of search of historical truth. The historical science of XX - the XX-Ith centuries gets under the influence of ideologies and the so-called ideologisms that makes history sometimes sophistical, it leads to substitution of historical truth by just a historical opinion. The historical relativity is one of the acute problems of teaching of history. Has History as science prospects and what are they? Is the question.
Keywords: history, science, historical life, cognition, truth.
Historical reflection is one of the prerogatives of man. Only if for the ancient Greek history is a pure description-fixation of events, life or everyday life, then the modern European history moves away from pure descriptiveness towards philosophy. In other words, history is, first of all, a comprehension of history, it is a search for the meaning of historical being, its analysis, penetration into its deep laws.
If we take modern historical science (both Russian and global in general), then its classical reflective spirit is slowly fading away. Historical inquisitiveness dies out, historical research turns out to be two-dimensional, their three-dimensional depth disappears. As a rule, history closes on the study of textual historical sources, therefore it becomes more descriptive in nature than analytical. The historian in this case turns from a researcher into a storyteller, educator and propagandist, he rather narrates about the historical past than comprehends it.
The crisis of modern historical science has many faces. Perhaps the basis for the fading of historical analytics is the departure from the conceptuality of historical research: scientific conceptuality is replaced by non-scientific eclecticism and political opportunism, which naturally results in a distortion of the truth of historical existence.
On the other hand, the science of history was also affected by the postmodern annihilation of truth, the transformation of the latter from the desired goal of epistemological attempts into a word in a text, into a textual reality. Historical science thereby loses not only the spirit of academicism, but sometimes, however paradoxical it may sound, its own scientific character. The truth of history is also supplanted by attachment
stance to the "historical fashion": let's say there is a "fashion" for a certain interpretation of the 1917 revolution or the Great Patriotic War. The pages of history are thus rewritten and often become completely unrecognizable. Historical knowledge diverges from the reality of historical existence, and thus historical science is not just experiencing a crisis, it is given to the will of the masses, the mass dictates the truth of history.
Now let's narrow down the crisis phenomena in historical science in general to the framework of domestic science, more specifically, Soviet-post-Soviet. History as a science always has the danger of an alliance with ideology, which soviet history. The ideologization of historical science may be the result of the degeneration of its philosophical component, its transformation into an ideological one, which, for example, happened to the philosophy of Marxism. With the ideologization of historical science, historical facts are also distorted, but already ideologically, historical reality is rewritten and adjusted to fit the ideology (liberal, Marxist national or any other). The meaning of history thus turns out to be mediated by ideology, the source base is adjusted to the ideological message. Ideologized history is characterized not by the desire for the essence of the historical, but by fitting the historical to the ideology. The historian-ideologist proceeds not from the primacy of historical reality, but from the primacy of his own ideology. Historical being in such a case becomes a servant of ideology, and scientific discussion is replaced by the struggle of ideologies.
If in Soviet times the whole history was biased in a Marxist way and class ideologized, then post-Soviet historical science is moving away from the ideological Historical mainstream, but acquiring new problems. Today in historical science it is tolerant
There are polarity concepts: postmodernism, constructivism, historical eclecticism or neo-Marxism. Among modern professional historians, therefore, there is not even a hint of any agreement. It turns out that Russian history, leaving Marxism, threw off not just the fetters of ideology. History has not arrived at historical truth, it degenerates into deconstruction, separate facts are snatched out of the historical process and mechanically combined with others. The element of connection is an arbitrary vision of history, which is based on the subjective preferences of the historian. The result is a mosaic of historical existence, composed of both historical facts and pseudo-facts. Eclecticism becomes dominant in the historical consciousness.
The identified problems of historical science affect the concept of teaching history both in secondary and higher educational institutions. Postmodern relativism, reductionism and eclecticism of historical and scientific thinking is manifested in the multivariance of history textbooks or the lack of a general assessment of the historical path of Russia. Today, a new generation of people is growing up, brought up on sophistical history. For example, modern Brazilian schoolchildren are taught that in World War II, they say, there was no winner at all, the USSR did not win the war, which is an unacceptable distortion of historical reality.
So, in historical thinking, a situation arose that was once described by Kant, who tried to give an analyst of pure reason: historical thinking falls into antinomies (for example, the characterization of Stalin as an outstanding political figure and as the organizer of the "great terror"). Perhaps a way out of the antinomies of historical consciousness should be sought in the Kantian direction, but by overcoming the Kantian gap between theoretical reason and morality. In the Kantian way (which is represented in the philosophy of history of the neo-Kantians of the Baden school), historical events are considered exclusively through the prism of practical reason (for the Badenians, these are absolute values). Historical events thus, they become axiologically two-tone black and white, and historical truth in its classical (Aristotelian) understanding is replaced by the truth of good and evil. Meanwhile, historical truth cannot be axiological. Historical truth is, first of all, the correspondence of historical knowledge to historical reality, and only after that does historical knowledge give events an axiological assessment.
Historical Science and the Postmodern Worldview
in the European public mind last third 20th century postmodernist ideas begin to dominate, which are characterized primarily by overcriticism of rationalism, the rejection of absolute truth and the meaning of history as a whole. In historical science, postmodern
Sodernist trends lead to the fact that the question of objective truth is replaced by the question of understanding. Modern historical analytics is often reduced to turning to written sources, whether they are historical chronicles or literary works. The postmodernist historian H. White tried to prove that historical description, or narrative, is subject not to the logic of historical development, but to the logic of literary genres, from drama to comedy. History will thereby be replaced by literature, and facts by the historian's frame of mind. Hence the rejection of objective truth and historical reality as such. It turns out that the historian can cognize historical reality as a product of subjective consciousness, that is, as a literary text.
It turns out that in postmodern historical science, hermeneutics and psychology were synthesized into a method of historical research. This may give interesting results for history, but only as special case. Only when systems approach these results can take their place in the overall picture of historical existence, which postmodern historians are not capable of. The humanistic project voiced by Pico della Mirandola, which emphasized the relationship of natural patterns with the unity of the human race, is rejected by postmodernism. Thus, the meaning of history and history as a process, movement and development lose their meaning.
Appreciating what you have now, or not appreciating anything - this is, according to postmodernism, the only truth. Postmodernism expands the concept of Dasein, it becomes mobile, and this mobility depends on the strength of the author's creativity. Historian Hans Kellner said of the influence of Erich Auerbach and Michel Foucault on the worldview of the postmodern era: "Their version of humanism says that people's lives are determined by their literary and linguistic capabilities."
Philistine and scientific in history
Another problem of modern historical science is the blurring of the demarcation line between history as a science and the philistine opinion about history: today the philistine-historical opinion penetrates into what has always been scientific-historical, destroys the core of the scientific nature of history. Thus, pseudo-historical works are published in huge editions, in which historical reality is replaced by fairy tales about the suffering people and Stalin as their intercessor, about our eternal external enemies, etc. The Polish historian E. Topolsky notes that there are two types of readers of historical texts: semantic (that is, naive, perceiving the text in a literal sense) and semiotic (that is, approaching the text critically). It is naive readers-consumers who today sometimes dictate the direction in historical science. To please such readers, historical facts are hushed up and historical reality is distorted, which is done, as a rule, by populist historians.
The philistine approach to history is characterized by superficiality and uncriticality, a departure from objective truth, but at the same time the belief in the presence of one's own position, claiming to be true, regarding the reality of historical existence. Modern media easily manipulate the historical consciousness of such an ingenuous, poorly educated layman, introducing distorted historical facts into it and leading a person even further away from the truth of history.
The layman who supposedly tries to think historically receives " historical knowledge”from populist mass literature, where, as a rule, the historical past is glorified, which to some extent compensates for the inferiority of modernity and gives hope for the embodiment of the historical legend in the reality of modernity (for example, the legend of equality and fraternity that allegedly existed in the USSR, and return to national brotherhood in modern Russia).
Playing along with such views, some politicians gain popularity among the people. For the sake of their own legitimacy, they hide behind the slogan "the people are always right." Therefore, there is always a threat that such a "popular" public consciousness will absorb the historically scientific consciousness, like the general will of J.-J. Rousseau absorbs individual will. Philistine opinion interferes with scientific truth.
Since at the philistine level the history of Russia is viewed in a heroic context, and its negative aspects are viewed as a conspiracy, modernity also appears as an absolutely negative process in which the scenario of an enemy conspiracy is visible. It is highly likely that in this situation new ideologies will emerge based on the mythologemes of Russian history. For example, the dream of the revival of Holy Russia in modern conditions. Historical consciousness formed in this way can influence the vigorous activity of a person. Instead of solving the problems of the present, responding to the challenge of history, a person spends his energy on creating political organizations that act in line with the fight against the enemy environment.
History is not just social science but also the guarantor of social development, guarded by professional historians. It is professional knowledge about the historical process that constitutes the core of historical consciousness. They form a historical paradigm that acquires an official status. This paradigm is transferred to educational system and is the basis for the formation of the historical thinking of the population as a whole. Therefore, Franklin Ankersmit's demand to historians is legitimate: they "should always be aware that they, like writers, have a cultural responsibility, and therefore their language must be understandable and readable for all those interested in history" .
History Perspectives
With the sometimes extreme subjectivism and eclecticism of modern historical science, today, however, the classical historical paradigm of thinking survives, which does not at all claim to be postmodern literary or constructing the reality of the past. The intention of the classical approach to history is that the historian first of all stands on "historical ground". The category of historical being is fundamental for a historian of the classical type, and its essence and regularities are the goal of historical science.
Works appear in modern historical science that try to lead historical science away from the descending line of development. Such an attempt, for example, is the historical study by O. M. Medushevsky “Theory and Methodology of Cognitive History”. The book was discussed in the pages of the magazine " Russian history”, where its positive aspects were noted. “The theory and methodology of cognitive history,” noted, for example, B. S. Ilizarov, “is a work that raises the most profound questions of historical knowledge ... The concept of a “thing” is very convincingly introduced into the concept - a historical source as a product of purposeful human activity, studying which, of course, one can reach the true universals of ideas about a person. Our historical picture can change and, in this sense, be accessible to various interpretations, but source study is a rigorous science, since the criteria for evidence-based and accurate knowledge are unchanged. It is these categories that the concept presented in this book advocates. From these positions, it is advisable to address not only questions of a proper epistemological nature, but also the problems of ethics - good and evil, the value choice of each era. O. M. Medushevskaya noted the need to analyze historical texts more deeply. So, when studying chronicles, one must not only answer the question of what this or that text says, but also what and why the author is silent. O. M. Medushevskaya, on the one hand, returns historical science to philosophical appeal, which gives it (science) depth of analysis, theoreticality and conceptuality. On the other hand, strict reliance on historical sources does not allow the growth of numerous historical quasi-interpretations. Historical science acquires accuracy, objectivity, it does not go beyond the actual materiality and eventfulness of the course of history.
LIST OF SOURCES AND LITERATURE
1. Domanska E. Philosophy of history after modernism. M.: Kanon+, 2010. - 400 p.
2. Round table on the book by O. M. Medushevsky "Theory and Methodology of Cognitive History" // Russian History. - 2010. - No. 1.
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 rollover 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, not having the proper personal social experience (you can’t gain it in libraries and archives), they “blank out” such great figures of their eras as Peter 1, 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 are good for only 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 analogy(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, you need to 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.