The general trend of historical development is the transition from systems with a predominance of natural determination to systems with a predominance of socio-historical determination, which is based on the development of productive forces. Improving the means and organization of labor ensures an increase in its productivity, which in turn entails the improvement of the labor force, brings to life new production skills and knowledge and changes the existing social division of labor. Simultaneously with the progress of technology, science is developing. At the same time, the composition and volume of necessary human needs are expanding and the ways of satisfying them, lifestyle, culture and way of life are changing. A higher level of development of productive forces corresponds to a more complex form of production relations and social organization as a whole, and an increased role of the subjective factor. The degree of mastery by society of the spontaneous forces of nature, expressed in the growth of labor productivity, and the degree of liberation of people from the yoke of spontaneous social forces, socio-political inequality and spiritual underdevelopment - these are the most general indicators of historical progress. However, this process is contradictory, and its types and rates are different. Initially due to the low level of development of production, and later also due to private ownership of the means of production, some elements of the social whole systematically progressed at the expense of others. This makes the development of society as a whole antagonistic, uneven, and zigzag. The disproportion between the progress of technology, labor productivity and the growth of alienation, exploitation of workers, between the material wealth of society and the level of its spiritual culture is especially noticeable in the 20th century. It is reflected in the growth of social pessimism and numerous philosophical and sociological theories of the 20th century, directly or indirectly denying progress and proposing to replace this concept either with the idea of cyclical circulation or with the “neutral” concept of “social change”. The place of liberal-progressive utopias was taken by the concepts of the “end of history” and pessimistic dystopia. In the same spirit, many global problems of modern civilization are interpreted - environmental and energy, the threat of nuclear war, etc. The question of the criteria for progress in relation to the highest spheres of spiritual activity, for example, art, where new trends and forms, arising on the basis of old ones, is also very complex. do not cancel or stand “above” the latter, but coexist with them as autonomous, alternative and complementary ways of seeing and constructing the world.
Although the theory of progress is often formulated in objective and impersonal terms, its most important driver, ultimate goal and criterion is man himself. Underestimation of the human factor and the false idea that socialism will automatically resolve all social contradictions led to a whole series of economic, socio-political and moral deformations that were overcome in the process of perestroika. The formation of a new civilization is impossible without the free and harmonious development of the individual. The concept of progress is only one element of historical consciousness; understanding the development of society as a natural historical process does not exclude the fact that it is also a world-historical drama, each episode of which, with all its participants, is individual and has its own value. An important feature of the modern era is the transition from an extensive type of development, leveling out social and individual differences and based on the principle of domination and subordination, to an intensive one. Humanity will not be able to survive and resolve its global environmental, energy and other problems without learning to manage social processes. This presupposes a rejection of technocratic thinking, the humanization of progress, and the highlighting of universal human values, to which class, state, national and other more private interests should be subordinated. To do this, it is necessary to reduce the unevenness of objective opportunities to use the material and cultural benefits of civilization. At the same time, the new world civilization will not be a uniform monolith; it involves an increase in the variety of types of development and diversity of forms of socio-political, national and spiritual life. Hence the need for tolerance of differences and the ability to overcome the conflicts and difficulties associated with them peacefully, through increased cooperation and cooperation. New political thinking - a global environmental imperative (demand, order, law, unconditional principle of behavior).
Having arisen on the basis of social history, the concept of progress was transferred to the natural sciences in the 10th century. Here, as in social life, it has not an absolute, but a relative meaning. The concept of progress is not applicable to the Universe as a whole, since there is no clearly defined direction of development, and to many processes of inorganic nature that have a cyclical nature. The problem of criteria for progress in living nature causes controversy among scientists.
Any person even slightly familiar with history will easily find in it facts indicating its progressive progressive development, its movement from lower to higher. Homo sapiens (reasonable man) as a biological species stands higher on the ladder of evolution than its predecessors - Pithecanthropus and Neanderthals. The progress of technology is obvious: from stone tools to iron ones, from simple hand tools. To machines that enormously increase the productivity of human labor, from the use of the muscular power of humans and animals to steam engines, electric generators, nuclear energy, from primitive means of transportation to cars, airplanes, and spaceships. The progress of technology has always been associated with the development of knowledge, and the last 400 years - with the progress of primarily scientific knowledge. Humanity has mastered, cultivated, adapted almost the entire earth to the needs of civilization, thousands of cities have grown - more dynamic types of settlements compared to the village. In the course of history, forms of exploitation have been improved and softened. Then the exploitation of man by man is completely eliminated.
It would seem that progress in history is obvious. But this is by no means generally accepted. In any case, there are theories that either deny progress or accompany its recognition with such reservations that the concept of progress loses all objective content and appears as relativistic, depending on the position of a particular subject, on the system of values with which he approaches history.
So, the highest and universal objective criterion of social progress is the development of productive forces, including the development of man himself.
It is important, however, not only to formulate a criterion for social progress, but also to determine how to use it. If it is applied incorrectly, then the very formulation of the question of an objective criterion of social progress can be discredited.
It should be taken into account that productive forces determine the development of society: a) ultimately, b) on a world-historical scale, c) in the most general form. The real historical process takes place in specific historical conditions and in the interaction of many social forces. Therefore, its pattern is by no means determined uniquely by productive forces. Taking this into account, social progress cannot be interpreted as a unilinear movement. On the contrary, each achieved level of productive forces opens up a range of different possibilities, and which path the historical movement will take at a given point in social space depends on many circumstances, in particular on the historical choice made by the subject of social activity. In other words, the path of progress in its specific historical embodiment is not initially set; various development options are possible.
Problems of periodization. The period from the end of the 15th to the middle of the 17th century. according to one of the traditions that has developed in domestic science, it is called the late Middle Ages, according to another, also characteristic of foreign historiography, it is called the early modern time.
Both terms are intended to emphasize the transitional and extremely contradictory nature of this time, which belonged to two eras at once. It is characterized by profound socio-economic shifts, political and cultural changes, a significant acceleration of social development, along with numerous attempts to return to outdated relationships and traditions. During this period, feudalism, while remaining the dominant economic and political system, was significantly deformed. In its depths, the early capitalist structure was born and formed, but in different European countries this process was uneven. Along with changes in worldview associated with the spread of humanism, the rethinking of Catholic dogma during the Reformation, and the gradual secularization of social thought, there was an increase in popular religiosity. Outbursts of demonomania at the end of the 16th - first half of the 17th centuries, bloody religious wars revealed the close connection of this historical stage with the past.
The beginning of the early modern period is considered to be the turn of the 15th-16th centuries - the era of the Great Geographical Discoveries and the heyday of Renaissance culture, which marked a break with the Middle Ages in both the economic and spiritual spheres. The boundaries of the ecumene known to Europeans expanded sharply, the economy received a powerful impetus as a result of the development of open lands, a revolution took place in cosmological ideas and in the public consciousness, and a new, Renaissance type of culture took hold.
The choice of the upper chronological edge of late feudalism remains debatable. A number of historians, relying on economic criteria, are inclined to extend the “long Middle Ages” to the entire 18th century. Others, citing the first successes of the global capitalist system in individual countries, propose to take as a conditional boundary the major socio-political cataclysms associated with its growth - the liberation movement in the Netherlands in the second half of the 16th century. or the English Revolution of the mid-17th century. It is also widely believed that the Great French Revolution of the 18th century. - a more justified starting point for new times, since by this moment bourgeois relations had already triumphed in many European countries. However, most historians tend to consider the middle of the 17th century. (the era of the English Revolution and the end of the Thirty Years' War) as a watershed between the early modern era and the beginning of modern history itself. In this volume, the presentation of historical events is brought to the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which summed up the results of the first major pan-European conflict and for a long time determined the direction of the political development of Europe.
Main trends in economic development. The coexistence of the new and the traditional was clearly manifested in the sphere of economic life and economic processes of the early modern period. Material culture (tools, techniques and skills of people in agriculture and crafts, technology) generally retained a medieval character.
The 15th-16th centuries did not know truly revolutionary changes in technology or new sources of energy. This period marked the last stage of development of pre-industrial agrarian civilization in Europe, which ended with the advent of the industrial revolution in England in the 18th century.
On the other hand, many socio-economic phenomena contained new features: certain areas of the economy emerged, in which technical development proceeded at an accelerated pace; important shifts occurred thanks to new forms of organization of production and its financing. The progress of mining, metallurgy, a revolution in shipbuilding and military affairs, the rapid rise of book printing, the production of paper, glass, new types of fabrics, and the development of natural sciences prepared the first stage of the industrial revolution.
B XVI-XVII centuries Western Europe is covered with a fairly dense network of communications. The progress of trade and communications contributed to the development of internal and pan-European markets. Global changes followed the Great Geographical Discoveries. The emergence of settlements of European colonists and a network of trading posts in Asia, Africa, and America marked the beginning of the formation of the world market. At the same time, the formation of the colonial system took place, which played a huge role in the accumulation of capital and the development of capitalism in the Old World. The development of the New World had a profound and comprehensive impact on the socio-economic processes in Europe; it marked the beginning of a long struggle for spheres of influence in the world, markets and raw materials.
The most important factor in economic development in this era was the emergence of the early capitalist structure. By the end of the 16th century. he became a leader in the economy of England, and later the Netherlands, and played a prominent role in certain industries in France, Germany, and Sweden. At the same time, in Italy, where elements of early bourgeois relations arose in the 14th-15th centuries, by the beginning of the 17th century. their stagnation began due to unfavorable market conditions. In Spain and Portugal, the cause of the death of the sprouts of a new way of life was mainly the short-sighted economic policy of the state. In the German lands east of the Elbe, in the Baltic states, Central and South-Eastern Europe, early capitalism did not spread. On the contrary, the involvement of these grain-producing regions in international market relations led to the opposite phenomenon - a return to the domain economy and severe forms of personal dependence of peasants (the so-called second edition of serfdom).
Despite the uneven development of the early capitalist structure in different countries, it began to have a constant impact on all spheres of economic life in Europe, which already in the 16th-17th centuries. was an interconnected economic system with a common market for money and goods, as well as the established international division of labor. And yet, orderliness remained the most important characteristic of the economy.
The main political, social, historical and epistemological trends of the era that influenced the development of historical science. Cliometric positivism (P. Chaunu, F. Furet). Development of logical positivism by K. Popper. Interpretation of the Marxist methodology of history by R. Aron. Post-war development of the “Annals School” and the identification of various directions from it. Influence on the methodology of the history of narratology and philological sciences. Development of social and economic history. History of culture and methodology of history. "New Intellectual History".
Civilizational approach to history (O. Spengler and A. Toynbee). Basic methodological principles of the civilizational approach to history. “The Decline of Europe” by O. Spengler. The concept of “morphology of world history”. Tables of “comparative morphology of world history.” Historical works of A. Toynbee. Scheme of the history of civilizations according to A. Toynbee. Genesis of civilizations according to A. Toynbee. The theory of “call and response”, “exit and return” The concepts of “split of civilizations” and “universal states”.
History of the origin and basic principles of the “New Historical Science”. M. Blok and L. Febr. Magazine "Annals". What did the representatives of the “new historical science” criticize? Basic principles of the “new historical science”. Concepts of historical synthesis, total history, temporal structure, macrohistorical and microhistorical approaches, multidisciplinary approach and interdisciplinary synthesis. Dialogue of cultures. Mentality.
"New historical science". Mark Block. M. Blok’s ideas about the place of history in humanitarian culture. Features of historical observation according to M. Blok. Types of historical evidence. Difference between documentary and narrative sources. M. Blok’s assessment of the method of “skeptical” attitude towards sources. Two types of deception in sources. M. Blok on historical terminology. Basic principles of M. Blok's critical method.
Historical anthropology. Main directions of development in the twentieth century. Basic methodological principles of historical anthropology. The concept of otherness and dialogue of cultures. The concept of mentality. Works of the classics of historical anthropology: F. Ariès, R. Darnton, J. Duby, F. Braudel, D. Levy. What is the “anthropological dimension” of history? The concept of “dense description” by K. Geertz. The influence of social anthropology on historical anthropology (C. Lévi-Strauss).
Historical anthropology. J. Le Goff. Le Goff's assessments of political history. What are the new approaches? Le Goff's suggestions for the study of political history? The book “The Civilization of the Medieval West”: Design, methodological principles, advantages and disadvantages of the approach. How does Le Goff propose to study mentality?
Historical anthropology. F. Braudel. The main works of F. Braudel. Main features of Braudel's structuralist method. What is Braudel's object of study? What is meant by “material life”? What is meant by “structures of everyday life”? The concept of “world-economy”.
History of private life and development paths of this scientific direction. The emergence of the history of private life as a special direction. The most famous works on the history of private life. Basic methodological principles of this scientific direction. Demographic behavior as an object of research.
Basic principles of the microhistorical approach. The emergence of microhistory. Basic principles of the microhistorical approach. K. Ginzburg. J. Levy. B. Haupert and F. Schafer. N.Z. Davis. Advantages and disadvantages of the microhistorical approach.
Microhistory. Carlo Ginzburg. How does Ginzburg formulate the research problems facing proponents of the microhistorical approach? How does he propose to solve them? K. Ginzburg’s book “Cheese and Worms”: content, methodological principles, advantages and disadvantages.
Postmodern challenge and historical science. What is postmodernism? The idea of history as an explanatory system, a metastory. Basic principles of postmodernist criticism of historical science. H. White. Postmodernists’ interpretation of history as an “operation of verbal fiction.” “Linguistic turn” (A. Danto). Development and rethinking of H. White's theory in the works of F. Ankersmit.
Reasons for rethinking the place and principles of historical knowledge in the second half of the twentieth century. Historical reasons. Political reasons. Epistemological reasons. Understanding history as a special “cultural practice”. The concept of postmodernism (J. Lyotard). The cognitive revolution and its impact on humanities. Development of philological sciences and their influence on humanities.
How did historical science respond to the postmodern challenge? Techniques and methods of denial of postmodernism by supporters of the positivist approach. The current state of historical postmodernism. “The third direction” in the criticism of historical postmodernism (L. Stone, R. Chartier, J. Iggers, G. Spigel, P. Bourdieu). Possible ways to criticize the postmodern approach to history.
"Postmodern challenge". Hayden White. "Metahistory" by H. White. The concept of tropology. Denotative and connotative signification. Metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche and irony. History and poetics. Verification. How does White define the principles of constructing a historical narrative? Explanation through plotting. Romance, Tragedy, Comedy and Satire. Explanation through evidence. Modes of Formism, Organicism, Mechanism and Contextualism Explanation through ideological subtext. Tactics of Anarchism, Conservatism, Radicalism and Liberalism.
Historical hermeneutics: History of origin. What is hermeneutics? Concepts of interpretation and understanding. Hermeneutics in ancient and medieval science. The emergence of historical hermeneutics. Y.M. Cladenius. G.F. Mayer.
Historical hermeneutics. Friedrich Schleiermacher. Wilhelm Dilthey, Hermeneutics as the “universal art of understanding” by F. Schleiermacher. The scientific and creative act of the author of the work. Comparative and divinatory methods of understanding. Hermeneutics and psychological interpretation. The principle of congeniality of V. Dilthey.
Historical hermeneutics. Martin Heidegger. Hans Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, The concept of the hermeneutic circle in M. Hadegger. “Sketching meaning”, pre-concepts and the problem of interpretation. Understanding and interpretation in G. Gadamer and P. Ricoeur.
Application of the method of historical hermeneutics I.N. Danilevsky.
The concepts of centon and bricolage. The method of stable semantic keys by R. Picchio and the centon-paraphrase method by I.N. Danilevsky. Genetic criticism of the source and the problem of interpretation. Advantages and disadvantages of the method.
Semiotics and history. Basic principles of semiotics. The concept of semiotics. What and how does semiotics study? Concept of a sign. Signifiers and signified signs. Figurative signs, indices and diagrams. The concept of signification. The process of semiosis. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations between signs. Synchrony and Diachrony. Paradigmatics and syntagmatics.
Development of semiotics in the twentieth century. Classics of semiotics: C. Pierce, F. De Saussure, C. Morris, R. Barth. Moscow and Prague linguistic circles. Identification of different directions in semiotics: linguistic semiotics, semiotics in literary criticism, semiotics of art, logical semiotics, psychological semiotics, social semiotics, visual semiotics, historical semiotics.
Semiotics in Russia. Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman. The emergence of the Moscow-Tartu semiotic school. Yu.M. Lotman, B.A. Uspensky, B.M. Gasparov: main works and ideas. Concept of the text by Yu.M. Lotman. The concept of semiosphere. Theory of the poetic word M.M. Bakhtin. "Proceedings on sign systems." Features of the cultural-semiotic approach to history.
The concept of historical memory and its development in the works of French researchers. The relationship between the concepts of history and memory. Project of “places of memory”: structure, principles of construction, advantages and disadvantages.
The theory of “places of historical memory” by P. Nora. The concept of “place of memory”. Examples of “places of memory” from the French project. The possibility of applying this technique to Russian history.
Theories of nations and nationalism in the twentieth century. B. Anderson. “Imaginary Communities” by B. Anderson: structure and main ideas of the book. Why does B. Anderson define nations as “imagined communities”? How does he interpret the origins of nationalism? Concepts of symbols and memory of the nation. Nation Building Toolkit according to B. Anderson.
Theories of nations and nationalism in the twentieth century. Hans Kohn. G. Kohn's interpretation of the nation as a “historical and political concept.” The concept of the origin of nationalism by G. Kohn. Ways of forming nations according to G. Kohn.
Edward Said and his analysis of “Orientalism” as a way for the West to assimilate a foreign culture. The concept of orientalism. Techniques and methods by which the West identifies the East. The concept of imaginative geography – using the example of Orientalism. The methods by which Orientalism opened the East to the West. The image of the “White Man” as a colonial style of the West’s relationship to the East. The current state of Orientalism.
Models of reading one culture by another using the example of Larry Wolf's research. Principles of “discovery” of another world according to L. Wolf. Cultural stereotypes and myths used in this. Historical stereotypes and myths used in this case. The concept of “mental geography”. Possibilities of overcoming cultural stereotypes in historical writings.
Prosopography. The concept of prosopography. School of Elite Studies. School of Statistical Mass Studies. The concept of social mobility. Advantages and disadvantages of the prosopographic method.
Gender studies. The concept of gender. Joan Scott and her article: “Gender: a useful category of historical analysis.” Differences between the gender approach and historical feminology. Methodological principles of gender history. Gender studies and visual culture. Gender studies and the history of everyday life.
"New demographic science". Historical demography. The emergence of a “new demographic history.” Method of “restoring family history” by L. Henri. Statistical and mathematical methods and computer techniques used in historical demography. The concepts of population reproduction mode and type of population reproduction.
Questions for the test and exam:
1. Main trends in the development of historical science in the first half of the twentieth century.
2. Main trends in the development of historical science in the second half of the twentieth century.
3. Civilizational approach to history (O. Spengler and A. Toynbee).
4. History of the emergence and basic principles of the “New Historical Science”.
5. “New historical science.” Mark Block.
6. Historical anthropology. Main directions of development in the twentieth century.
7. Historical anthropology. J. Le Goff.
8. Historical anthropology. F. Braudel.
9. History of private life and development paths of this scientific direction.
10. Basic principles of the microhistorical approach.
11. Microhistory. Carlo Ginzburg.
12. Postmodern challenge and historical science.
13. Reasons for rethinking the place and principles of historical knowledge in the second half of the twentieth century.
14. How did historical science respond to the postmodern challenge?
15. "Postmodern challenge." Hayden White.
16. Historical hermeneutics: History of origin.
17. Historical hermeneutics. Wilhelm Dilthey, Friedrich Schleiermacher.
18. Historical hermeneutics. Hans Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Martin Heidegger.
19. Application of the method of historical hermeneutics by Igor Nikolaevich Danilevsky.
20. Semiotics and history. Basic principles of the semiotic approach in historical science.
21. Development of semiotics in the twentieth century.
22. Semiotics in Russia. "Moscow-Tartu School". Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman.
23. The concept of historical memory and its development in the works of French researchers.
24. The theory of “places of historical memory” Pierre Nora.
25. Theories of nations and nationalism in the twentieth century. Benedict Anderson.
26. Theories of nations and nationalism in the twentieth century. Hans Kohn.
27. Edward Said and his analysis of “Orientalism” as a way for the West to assimilate a foreign culture
28. Models of reading one culture by another using the example of Larry Wolf’s research
29. Prosopography.
30. Gender studies.
31. “New demographic science.”
There are a number of eternal questions that have long troubled minds. Who are we? Where did they come from? Where we are going? These are just some of the problems facing broad disciplines such as philosophy.
In this article we will try to understand what humanity is doing on Earth. Let's get acquainted with the opinions of researchers. Some of them view history as a systematic development, others - as a cyclical closed process.
This discipline takes as its basis the question of our role on the planet. Is there any meaning at all to all the events that happen? We are trying to document them and then link them into a single system.
However, who is actually the actor? Does a person create a process, or do events control people? Philosophy of history tries to solve these and many other problems.
During the research process, concepts of historical development were identified. We will discuss them in more detail below.
It is interesting that the term “philosophy of history” first appears in the works of Voltaire, but the German scientist Herder began to develop it.
The history of the world has always interested humanity. Even in the ancient period, people appeared who tried to record and comprehend the events taking place. An example would be the multi-volume work of Herodotus. However, then many things were still explained by “divine” help.
So, let's delve deeper into the features of human development. Moreover, there are only a couple of viable versions as such.
The first type of teachings refers to unitary-stage teachings. What is meant by these words? Proponents of this approach see the process as unified, linear and constantly progressing. That is, both individuals and the entire human society as a whole, which unites them, are distinguished.
Thus, according to this view, we all go through the same stages of development. And Arabs, and Chinese, and Europeans, and Bushmen. Only at the moment we are at different stages. But in the end everyone will come to the same state of developed society. This means that you either need to wait until the others move up the ladder of their evolution, or help them with this.
The tribe must be protected from encroachments on territory and values. Therefore, a warrior class was formed.
The largest faction were ordinary artisans, farmers, cattle breeders - the lower strata of the population.
However, during this period people also used slave labor. Such disenfranchised farm laborers included everyone who was included in their number for various reasons. It was possible to fall into debt slavery, for example. That is, not to give the money, but to work it off. Captives from other tribes were also sold to serve the rich.
Slaves were the main labor force of this period. Look at the pyramids in Egypt or the Great Wall of China - these monuments were erected precisely by the hands of slaves.
But humanity developed, and the triumph of science was replaced by the growth of military expansion. A layer of rulers and warriors of stronger tribes, fueled by priests, began to impose their worldview on neighboring peoples, at the same time seizing their lands and imposing tribute.
It became profitable to take ownership not of powerless slaves who could rebel, but of several villages with peasants. They worked in the fields to feed their families, and the local ruler provided them with protection. For this, they gave him part of the harvest and livestock raised.
Concepts of historical development briefly describe this period as a transition of society from manual production to mechanized production. The era of feudalism basically coincides with the Middle Ages and
During these centuries, people mastered both external space - discovering new lands, and internal space - exploring the properties of things and human capabilities. The discovery of America, India, the Great Silk Road and other events characterize the development of mankind at this stage.
The feudal lord who owned the land had governors who interacted with the peasants. This freed up his time and could spend it for his own pleasure, hunting or military robberies.
But progress did not stand still. Scientific thought moved forward, as did social relations.
The new stage of the concept of historical development is characterized by greater human freedom compared to the previous ones. Thoughts begin to arise about the equality of all people, about the right of everyone to a decent life, and not vegetation and hopeless work.
In addition, the first mechanisms appeared that made production easier and faster. Now what a craftsman used to take a week to do could be created in a couple of hours, without involving a specialist or paying him money.
The first factories and plants appeared in place of the guild workshops. Of course, they cannot be compared with modern ones, but for that period they were simply excellent.
Modern concepts of historical development correlate the liberation of humanity from forced labor with its psychological and intellectual growth. It is not for nothing that entire schools of philosophers, natural science researchers and other scientists arise at this time, whose ideas are still valued today.
Who hasn't heard of Kant, Freud or Nietzsche? After the Great French Revolution, humanity began to talk not only about the equality of people, but also about the role of everyone in the history of the world. It turns out that all previous achievements were obtained through human efforts, and not with the help of various deities.
Today we live in a period of greatest achievements, if we look at the historical stages of development of society. Man learned to clone cells, set foot on the surface of the Moon, and explored almost every corner of the Earth.
Our time provides an inexhaustible fountain of opportunities, and it is not for nothing that the second name of the period is information. Nowadays, so much new information appears in a day that previously was not available in a year. We can no longer keep up with this flow.
Also, if you look at production, almost everyone makes mechanisms. Humanity is more occupied in the service and entertainment sectors.
Thus, based on the linear concept of historical development, people move from understanding the environment to becoming familiar with their inner world. It is believed that the next stage will be based on the creation of a society that was previously described only in utopias.
So, we have examined modern concepts of historical development. We also understood more deeply. Now you know the main hypotheses about the evolution of society from the primitive communal system to the present day.
HISTORIOGRAPHY
HISTORIES OF RUSSIA
Moscow, 2007
Introduction…………………………………………………………………4 – 16
PART ONE
Section I. Knowledge of Russian history
in the Middle Ages………………………………………………………….17 – 80
Section II. The formation of historical science
in the XVIII – early XIX centuries……………………………………………….61-165
Isolation of history into an independent scientific discipline.
Theoretical foundations of scientific historical knowledge.
Ideas of the Enlightenment in Russian historical science.
Organization of scientific research
Collection, publication and methods of criticizing sources .
Problems of historical research
Rationalistic-pragmatic concept of Russian history
Section Sh. AND historical science in the second
quarters – 80s of the XIX century…………………………………………….166-328
Conditions for the development of historical science.
Organizational forms of historical science.
New approaches to understanding the past.
Subject and tasks of historical science.
Main directions of historical science.
Historical issues in public debate
New trends in the development of historical science
PART TWO.
Section IV. Historical science in recent
quarter of the 19th century – first quarter of the 20th century. ……………………………..329-451
Development of organizational forms of scientific research.
Theory and methodology
Historical concepts of Russian history
Historical science in the concepts of Russian history.
Historical issues in public debate.
Section V. Soviet historical science…………………………..452-645
External conditions for the functioning of historical science.
Implementation of new principles for organizing educational and research centers
Introduction of the Marxist-Leninist worldview into historical science
The influence of the internal political situation in the country on the state of historical science
The main internal trends in the development of historical science. Concepts and methods.
Historical science in the first post-revolutionary years:
schools, concepts, discussions
The formation of Soviet historical science. Development of a unified concept of domestic and world history.
Methodological searches in Soviet historical science
Section VI. Domestic historical science at the end of the 20th – beginning of the 21st centuries………………………………………………………………………646-689
INTRODUCTION
The subject of historiography as a special discipline. The current level of scientific historical knowledge is the result of a long process of learning and understanding the past. Mastering centuries of experience in studying history is one of the most important aspects of a historian’s professional training.
The term “historiography” has been historically understood in two ways. The concepts of “historiographer” and “historian”, “historiography” and “history” in the 18th century were perceived as synonymous. “Historiographers” were called G.F. Miller, M.M. Shcherbatov, N.M. Karamzin, who were engaged in “writing history, that is, “historiography.” Subsequently, the meaning of these terms changed, and historiography was no longer understood as history in the literal sense of the word, not the science of the past, but the history of historical science itself, and later, accordingly, this was the name of an auxiliary historical discipline that studied the history of historical science.
Today, historiography is understood as research on the history of historical science, both in general (the study of the state and development of historical knowledge at its individual temporal and spatial stages), and in relation to the history of the development of individual problems (a set of scientific works devoted to a separate problem), the so-called problematic historiography .
The subject of historiography as a special discipline developed gradually, historically. The first definitions of the subject of historiography appeared in the second half of the 19th century. They were not unambiguous: reviews of historical literature and historical sources, scientific biographies of scientists. Gallery of “portraits” of scientists from the 18th to 19th centuries. was created by S.M. Solovyov, K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, P.N. Milyukov and others. “Scientific systems and theories” were considered as the subject of historiography. By the end of the 19th century. The study was not limited to historical works and historical concepts. The activities of “scientific and educational” institutions and almost the entire sphere of organizing scientific research, as well as the system of special and auxiliary historical disciplines, began to be considered as the subject of historiography. An example of this can be the work of V.S. Ikonnikov.
In Soviet historical science, the definition of the subject of historiography was addressed by the largest in national and world history - O.L. Vanshtein, N.L. Rubinshtein, L.V. Cherepnin, M.V. Nechkina, S.O. Schmidt, I.D. Kovalchenko, A.M.Sakharov, E.N.Gorodetsky, B.G.Mogilnitsky and others. Continuing the traditions of their predecessors, they defined the subject of historiography as the history of historical science, that is, the process of formation and development of scientific knowledge of the past, expressed in general and specific historical concepts. It also includes the study of historical science as a social institution, represented in certain forms of organization, management, and dissemination of historical knowledge.
The subject of historiography includes not only scientific knowledge of the past, based on the analysis of sources, the use of special scientific methods of research and theoretical understanding of the past, but also a broader aspect of historical knowledge - the history of historical thought, that is, general ideas about the world, history, presented in philosophy history, social, artistic thought. The subject of historiography includes the history of historical knowledge, that is, non-scientific, everyday ideas about the past, which not only enriches the idea of the past, but is also the most common form of forming the historical consciousness of society. The study of the historical consciousness of society, its individual groups, and the functioning of historical knowledge in social practice today is one of the important aspects of historiographic research.
Structure of the system of historical science. The content of historiography gradually expanded. The system of historical science includes the process of forming the image of the past, expressed in general and specific concepts in all its components - theory and methodology, source base, research methods; auxiliary and special historical disciplines. A concept is a system of views on historical phenomena and processes from the standpoint of a certain theory of knowledge, source base and methods of study. The theory determines the subject of study, the understanding of the nature of historical development, the factors and forces that determine it. It explains and reveals the basic meaning of the historical process. The actual development of science begins with the discovery of “the basic meaning that connects all its main phenomena,” noted V.O. Klyuchevsky. It affects the process of cognition itself - the methodology that determines the principles of cognition and is the basis for using the method. Differences in theory and methodology give rise to different understandings by historians of the course of social development, individual events and phenomena. Each of the components of historical knowledge has a certain independence and their own development. The system-forming component is theory and methodology. It is their change that determines the movement of science.
In addition, the system of science also includes social institutions of science (scientific historical institutions, personnel training, forms of dissemination of historical knowledge).
Historical knowledge is formed in a certain social environment, a certain type of culture, which is characterized by the socio-economic, political, ideological state of society, the development of philosophical, social, economic thought. These are factors that determine and influence the state of science in a given period of time. Historical science is closely connected with society; it serves as a link between the past, present and future.
All this determined the structure of historiographic research - the study of the conditions for the development of historical knowledge, the analysis of the historical concept, its influence on the practice of public life.
The process of cognition has a progressive nature. Historical knowledge is a complex and diverse process, it is in constant motion, theories and hypotheses are replaced. A change in guiding ideas and concepts is inevitable, because each theory explains a certain range of phenomena. There has always been pluralism in approaches, and even under the dominance of Marxist in Soviet historiography. Today, pluralism in approaches to the study and understanding of historical progress has become the norm.
The historiographic process is a constant accumulation and continuity of knowledge, a continuous search for truth. “Each new generation adds its own to the inheritance of its fathers,” wrote N.K. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. The achieved result is only the basis for the subsequent deepening of knowledge on the basis of new approaches to knowledge, new facts of new methods. At the same time, traditions in the study of the past are preserved. To trace how they were preserved, what was developed and what was lost, what they returned to and are returning to today. On the other hand, it is necessary to indicate how the new was born.
Assessment of historical knowledge. When assessing the significance of a particular concept, determining the place of a historian in historical science, it is of paramount importance to find out what is new in comparison with previous and modern historiography given by this or that concept from the point of view of theory and methodology, research methods, source base and specific conclusions. The second side of the assessment concerns the moral side and practical significance. What is its significance from the point of view of reflecting the needs of the era, using specific conclusions to understand a specific historical situation.
For Marxist historical science, one of the defining principles for understanding a particular concept, and therefore the importance of a historian, was the principle of partisanship. Modern historical science has abandoned it, and rightly so. However, it should be borne in mind that history is a social science, and historical knowledge in one way or another expresses certain social needs of society and its individual social groups. The main thing when considering any concept is to understand the historian and go along that path with him. Which he used to reach his conclusions.
Principles and methods of historiographical study. In determining the principles of research, historiographers proceed from the objective content of the historical-cognitive process, its diversity, and its dependence on internal and external factors. Methods vary depending on the specific research subject and research problem. Each method makes it possible to reveal one or another aspect of the scientific-cognitive process and collectively present it as a whole.
One of the main principles is the principle of historicism. It implies consideration of the process of cognition in its development and change, in connection with the nature of the era, its cultural-historical type, that is, the dominant type of cognition in a particular era, the presence of a certain set of cognitive means (State of theory and methodology). Scientists of the 19th century. noted, one cannot think that any philosophy, history (in the sense of knowledge about history) can go beyond the boundaries of the contemporary world, just as this or that scientist cannot jump over his era. The principle of historicism is of decisive importance when considering the categorical and conceptual apparatus of a particular era. It is the basis of many methods of cognition: historical-genetic, comparative historical, typological, historical-systemic and others. Modern science, in search of methods for historical and historiographical analysis itself, turns to interdisciplinary methods - cultural, scientific, psychological, philological. And here, special attention is drawn to those principles and methods of research that make it possible to understand the personality of a scientist, his cognitive consciousness, to penetrate into his inner world, into the laboratory of his research. The subjective nature of historical research itself is generally recognized, for the historian not only reproduces facts, but also explains them. This is due to the individual that is inherent in this or that scientist: his inner world, character, erudition, intuition, etc. The intrinsic value of the historian’s ideas and his right to his own vision of the problem are emphasized.
The formation of historiography as a special discipline Elements of historiography in the modern understanding of the word have been around for a long time: ancient Russian chroniclers were already, to a large extent, historiographers. In the 18th century, along with the advent of historical science, it became an integral part of it, although for a long time it was not considered as an independent discipline. It began to be defined as such from the middle of the 19th century, when its subject, tasks, meaning, principles of study, classification and periodization of historical knowledge were clearly defined. The formation and development of historiography as a special branch of historical science hand in hand with the development of historiography as part of the educational process.
From the very beginning of teaching Russian and world history, historiographical material was introduced into courses. M.T. Kachenovsky began his course on the history and statistics of the Russian state in 1810 with a critical analysis of historical literature. This tradition was continued by Lashnyukov, S.M. Soloviev, K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky on Russian history, T.N. Granovsky, P.N. Kudryavtsev, V. I.Gerrier, R.Yu.Vipper on general history. In the second half of the 19th century. Special courses on historiography began to be taught at Russian universities.
Not only historians, but also lawyers made their contribution to the development of Russian historiography, especially the development of theoretical and methodological problems (K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin). In the middle of the 19th century. a school of specialist philologists and historians was formed, studying the history and literature of the Slavic and Russian Middle Ages (S.P. Shevyrev, O.M. Bodyansky, N.S. Tikhonravov, F.F. Fortunatov, A.A. Shakhmatov).
Numerous works written by the founders of historiography are classic and largely retain their significance to this day. This is a series of portraits of Russian historians of the 18th – 19th centuries. S.M. Solovyov, N.K. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, V.O. Klyuchevsky; monograph by M.O. Koyalovich “History of Russian self-consciousness based on historical monuments and scientific works”, V.S. Ikonnikov “The Experience of Russian Historiography”, P.N. Milyukov “Main Currents of Russian Historical Thought” and others.
Scientists of the 19th century represented the development of historical knowledge as a single progressive process based on the preservation of traditions and respect for the works of predecessors, constantly enriched by new approaches to the study of history, the formulation and solution of new problems determined both by the movement of scientific knowledge itself and by the needs of society.
They included in the subject of their research oral traditions and historical literature, starting from the first chronicles. The basic principles of historiographic study were defined, a classification of historical literature was given, and a periodization of the development of historical knowledge was given. Scientists have identified differences in views on the historical past associated with the worldview and socio-political position of the scientist, and introduced the concept of “school”, “current”. The question was raised about studying the activities of scientific institutions and societies.
However, the Marxist reading of history with its priority of the party principle of understanding the past, including the historiographic heritage, led to a negative assessment of the historical concepts of their predecessors. This tendency is usually associated primarily with the name of M.N. Pokrovsky, who denied continuity in the development of historical science as a whole. Nevertheless, G.V. Plekhanov and P.N. Milyukov had a great influence on Marxist historiography. Soviet historiographers preserved and developed traditions in defining the subject and tasks of the history of historical science, and agreed with many assessments of the activities of scientists of the 19th century. In the 1930s, the publication of historical works by major Russian historians began.
Of great importance for the development of historiography was the resumption of reading in universities the course of historiography on domestic and world history and the publication of the first Soviet textbook - “Russian Historiography” by N.L. Rubinstein, which included coverage of the development of historical knowledge in Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the twentieth century .
The problems of historiography in the 40-50s were successfully dealt with by L.V. Cherepnin, who in 1957 published a course of lectures “Russian historiography before the 19th century”, and then the first work in Russian historiography “Historical views of the classics of Russian literature.
In subsequent years, the study of problems of historiography was continued by a number of researchers. The work on studying the history of historical science was headed by the historiography sector at the Institute of History of the USSR under the leadership of M.V. Nechkina. He prepared and published three volumes of “Essays on the history of historical science in the USSR” on pre-Soviet historiography (1955-1963) and two volumes on the history of historical science of the Soviet period (1966, 1984). New general courses on historiography have also appeared: “Historiography of the history of the USSR from ancient times to the Great October Socialist Revolution.” Ed. V.E. Illeritsky and I.A. Kudryavtsev (1961); course of lectures by A.M. Sakharov “Historiography of the history of the USSR. Pre-Soviet period" (1978); A.L. Shapiro "Historiography from ancient times to 1917" (1993) In addition, monographic studies were published in the 60-80s
A significantly smaller group of textbooks and studies represents the historiography of the twentieth century. In 1966, a textbook by V.N. Kotov “Historiography of the history of the USSR (1917-1934)” was published, in 1982 a textbook by Volkova L.V., Muravyov V.A. “Historiography of the history of the USSR during the period of completion of socialist construction in the USSR (mid-1930s - late 1950s), as well as the above-mentioned two volumes of “Essays on the history of historical science in the USSR.” Almost the only textbook on Soviet historiography was the textbook edited by I.I. Mints “Historiography of the history of the USSR. The Age of Socialism" (1982)
To characterize the features of domestic historical science, including when studying the traditions of research in Russian historiography, studies and textbooks that characterize the domestic experience in studying the historiography of related historical disciplines are of great importance: “History of Soviet Medieval Studies” by O.L. Vanshtein (1966) , “Historiography of the new and recent history of the countries of Europe and America” edited by E.S. Galkin (1968), “Historiography of the Middle Ages” by E.A. Kosminsky (1963), “Soviet Byzantine studies for 50 years” by Z. V. Udaltsova (1969) and of course modern historiography textbooks on various periods of world history.
The importance of historiography. By concentrating knowledge about the past, historiography performs a cognitive function in the system of historical science. It makes it possible to take advantage of the accumulated experience, “save research forces,” and choose the optimal ways to solve the challenges facing us. Understanding the past and present of historical science, the patterns of its development provides information to determine the prospects for its development, improve the forms of organization of scientific research, develop the source base, train specialist historians, etc.
Historiography plays an important role in the structure of each specific study in determining its objectives, source base, methodology and research methods. Knowledge of previous historical experience is an important aspect when interpreting facts and subsuming them under certain concepts and categories.
Historiography is the link between historical science and social practice. It reveals the “social order” of society for scientific knowledge and the role of this knowledge in solving the problems of our time.
Historiographic practice is one of the ways to establish the truth of historical knowledge. It reveals. What, in the process of studying the past, formed an organic, integral part of scientific ideas about the essence of the phenomena being studied, what conclusions are limited, relative, what was confirmed by subsequent research, what was rejected, etc. It establishes the priority of a particular scientist in putting forward new ideas in understanding the historical process.
Knowledge of the history of one’s science increases the professionalism of a scientist-historian, enriches his erudition, and increases the general cultural level. It teaches us to take care of everything that has been done on the path of knowledge of the past, and fosters respect for previous generations of historians and our contemporaries. An attempt “to present the results obtained by Russian historical science..., to point out the ways in which these results were and are being obtained... is not without benefit for those embarking on an independent study of history”1
In post-perestroika times, the study of the history of historical science has acquired special importance. This is due to a number of points: the need to develop theoretical and methodological issues of historical science, both in connection with a new attitude towards Marxism, and the formulation of new problems and the revision of old ones, determining the content of the conceptual and categorical apparatus; the opportunity to more deeply study the experience of philosophical and historical thought in Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. and foreign historiography of the twentieth century; wide publication of the historical heritage of previous eras; development of historical journalism. The forms of organizing historical research have also changed; the experience of training historians also needs careful analysis.
This determines the significance of historiography as an academic discipline.
Recently, attempts have been made to take a fresh look at the history of historical science, which is also reflected in educational literature. Among the textbooks: “Historiography of the history of Russia before 1917”, edited by M.Yu. Lachaeva (2003). Soviet historiography in its individual fragments is presented in the collection of articles “Soviet historiography” edited by Yu.N. Afanasyev (1996). textbook by N.G. Samarina “Domestic historical science in the Soviet era” (2002). The first attempt to comprehend the historiography of the 80-90s of the twentieth century. there was a publication of the work of E.B. Zabolotny and V.D. Kamynin Historical science of Russia on the eve of the third millennium (1999).
Increasing interest in the history of historical knowledge in all its manifestations is a characteristic feature of modern times. The ongoing changes in historical science draw the attention of scientists to a deeper study of the nature and goals of the historical-cognitive process, on existing and existing ideas about the past. But today the approach familiar to many historiographers has not yet been completely overcome, according to which the principles of the approach to the study of the history of historical science of Soviet society are fundamentally different from the approaches to the study of pre-Soviet historiography. This textbook is the first attempt to create a unified textbook for the course of historiography, in which all stages of comprehension of Russian history would be presented in a system.
The textbook presents the historical science of Russia on Russian history from ancient times to the beginning of the 21st century. The textbook is divided into two parts. The first part is a presentation of the state and development of science from ancient times to the last quarter of the 19th century. In accordance with the accepted periodization of the history of historical science, it consists of three sections: the first section - domestic historical science in the Middle Ages; second - historical science in the 18th - first quarter of the 19th century; third - historical science in the second - third quarter of the 19th century. Part two includes the development of historical science in the last third of the 19th - early 21st centuries: section four - historical science in the last quarter of the 19th century – first quarter of the twentieth century; section five – Soviet historiography. 1917 – 1985; section six – Domestic historical science at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st centuries.
The course is built in chronological order . The state of science at one or another stage of its development is presented with all the components that form its content
LITERATURE
Dmitrienko V.A. Introduction to historiography and source study of historical science. Tomsk 1988.
Kireeva R.A. The study of domestic historiography in pre-revolutionary Russia from the mid-19th century. until 1917. M., 1983.
Kovalchenko I.D. Methods of historical research. Part 1. M., 1987.
Nechkina M.V.. History of history (Some methodological issues in the history of historical science). //History and historians. Historiography of the history of the USSR. M., 1965.
Sakharov A.M. Methodology of history and historiography. Articles and speeches. M., 1981.
