The main trends in the historical development of Western Europe at the end of the 15th - first half of the 17th centuries. Main internal trends in the development of historical 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.
Philosophy of history
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.
Two points of view
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.
The era of feudalism
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.
Industrial society
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.
Post-industrial stage
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.
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 for using 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.
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 ideological 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 Volkov 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.
FIRST QUESTION. SPECIFICITY OF FOREIGN HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE XX CENTURY.
SECOND QUESTION. MAIN TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORICAL SCIENCE AT THE TURN OF THE XX – XXI CENTURIES.
FIRST QUESTION. In the twentieth century, there was a significant renewal of the principles of historicism, and a new image of man in history was formed. Experts described the transformation that began in the twentieth century as a historiographic revolution. These serious transformations began at the beginning of the twentieth century, but this trend reached its peak in the 1960-70s - the time of the formation and development of such a phenomenon, which was called the “New Historical Science”. These years marked a period of extreme scientism in historiography, a period of peak mathemization of historical science. This was the period of the dominance of structural history, a period of interest in mass phenomena to the detriment of individual groups and individuals, a period of extreme attention to the general to the detriment of the specific.
In general, the development of historical science and its increasing role in public life led to the formation after the Second World War of many scientific centers engaged in the development of historical issues. The number of historical societies increased, historical periodicals developed, and the circulation of history books, both specialized and popular science literature, grew. The number of history specialists graduating from universities grew.
International connections between professionals, inter-university exchanges, historical conferences, forums, round tables, and symposia developed, at which important issues were discussed. World congresses of historical sciences met every five years. And theoretical and methodological issues of world historiography were discussed on the pages of the international journal “History and Theory”.
Historical science could not help but feel the development of global processes that were taking place in society and in the world. These are scientific and technological revolution, the socio-political development of different countries, the Cold War, the collapse of colonial empires, etc. There are two periods in the development of historiography:
1) 1940-50s . With all the diversity of schools and trends in historiography, the ideographic direction, which is characterized by an attitude towards history as a science about individual phenomena, has acquired a special role. The influence of this methodology varied on the historiography of different countries, but the general trend was evident. The roots of this approach lie in the fact that at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. a number of European philosophers and sociologists criticized the positivist method. In particular, in Germany this criticism was made by representatives of the philosophy of life, Wilhelm Dilthey, as well as representatives of the German neo-Kantian school - Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert. They drew attention to the special specificity of the humanities: it is impossible to eliminate the subjective factor in the process of cognition, and the results of such historical knowledge will always be relative.
Both Dilthey and representatives of the neo-Kantian school said that the historian is not able to objectively reflect the surrounding reality. “Any knowledge in history is devalued by its extreme subjectivity” - Dilthey. Neo-Kantians divided all sciences into two groups: some deal with the development of general laws, others with specific historical facts. The first are the sciences of laws, the second are the sciences of events (ideographic sciences). In contrast to natural science, in history, the events that occur do not have common characteristics, therefore, here it is possible to use only an individualizing method, and not to derive general laws from particular cases.
These approaches subsequently had a significant influence on historical thought. Theory was not connected with practice for a long time, only in the post-war years the situation changed, and a number of new philosophical schools played their role, including personalism and existentialism.
These relativistic tendencies began to appear in US historiography. They affected almost all the leading historiographers - in particular, one of the leading movements - the progressivism, including its main representative, Charles Austin Beard. He began to develop neo-Kantian views, but these changes led to his decline. The historiography of West Germany did not have to change much. In the first post-war decade, the generation of historians that emerged during the Weimar Republic continued to dominate here. And with them, traditional German historicism, closely related to the ideographic direction, continued to develop.
In Great Britain, its traditional imperialism and dislike for theorizing continued to prevail. A number of works devoted to the problems of historical knowledge appeared in Britain, where these approaches showed themselves. A detailed presentation of the relativistic approach to history was given by the Dutch-born historian Gustav Johannes Renier in the book “History, Its Goals and Methods,” where he emphasized the subjective factor in the selection of facts by researchers. A number of famous historians spoke in his support, including an important representative of science Isaiah B e rlyn and Geoffrey Barraclough.
In post-war France, relativistic tendencies did not spread. The decisive influence was exerted by the historians of the Annales school, who in the 1930s revised the methodology of positivist historiography in France. They still believed in the possibility of historical knowledge, in the objective nature of this process, and in the idea of historical synthesis. After the Second World War, the general ideological attitude in historiography continued to change, in particular with regard to the ideas of progress. Reality itself demonstrated doubts about this. Two world wars, the formation of totalitarian regimes in Europe, the threat of a nuclear conflict - all this undermined faith in progress. But for a number of reasons, primarily because of the Cold War, which contributed to the ideologization of many areas of humanities, in the first post-war years a conservative war manifested itself in Foreign historiography.
In the United States, the conservative wave had broad and powerful representation. It was made possible by the decline of the Progressive school, as well as by the prominence of the theory of consensus, or theory of concerted interests, which was one of the first to formulate by the American historian Richard Hofstadter. In the USSR, this concept was positioned as the antithesis of the progressive movement. Representatives of this theory rejected the idea of conflict as an important line of American history.
Instead, representatives of this movement were based on the idea that American history has a special feature - the coherence of the basic elements of American society on the basis of compromises. Not conflicts, not a struggle of ideas, but the idea of compromise. On the right wing of this school were the largest representatives of American conservative historiography of the post-war years - Daniel Boorstin, Louis Harts, Robert Brown. They consistently came out with a rethinking of American history, paying special attention to the early colonial era, because. It was then that the foundations of the unity of the American nation were laid.
The main core of the conservative system of American history was the idea that social homogeneity and ideological unity were the defining elements of American society that lay at the basis of American statehood. They are traditional, and their growth occurred in the course of further historical development. And reforms are not the opposite, but their practical implementation.
In British historiography, a conservative wave took place where there was a negative attitude towards the English Revolution. A prominent historian was Lews Nemir. In the 1940s and early 1950s, there was a debate about the English revolution and the role of the Gentry in it, and in the course of it, the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, who interpreted the role of the gentry in the English revolution from a conservative perspective, became very famous. The English nobility continued to remain conservative in their views.
A number of other historians have been engaged in uncounting changes in the economy. In addition, they discussed the circumstances and consequences of the industrial revolution in Great Britain.
Conservative positions were also evident in the historiography of Germany. Parts of Germany were held by communists who started the Cold War. The conservative movement relied on historians of the old school. German historians described their contribution to the struggle between West and East.
One of the extreme consequences of the reigning relativistic approach was presentism, from the English. "present tense". This concept means historians following changes in political course, historians’ opportunistic behavior. The relativistic approach provided additional arguments for this kind of approach. Since the past is given to us only for humble experience, then modernization of the past is inevitable. The presentists in this post-war decade put history in the service of the political moment.
In 1949 in the United States, the president of the American Historical Association, Conniece Reed, motivated the need for the subordination of historical interpretations to modern political tasks by the social responsibility of history.
2) 1960-80s . Serious changes began to occur in the historical science of the United States and other countries. A scientific and technological revolution begins in Western countries, which influenced significant changes in the economy and social sphere. Powerful democratic movements are developing in Western countries. At the same time, the theory of stages of economic growth, formulated by the American economist and sociologist Waltuitman Rostow, gained great popularity in historiography. In Europe, one of the most consistent supporters of his ideas was another economist, Raymond Aron.
In these conditions of a changing world, a neoliberal wave is reviving in Western countries, which also affects historiography. And neoliberalism of this period stood in the same positions as social liberalism at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. Maintaining faith in liberal doctrines and principles regarding politics, but a slightly different approach to economics and social relations.
This trend has manifested itself very clearly in the USA. Among the leading representatives of the neoliberal trend is Arthur Schlesinger Jr. They viewed American history from the perspective of the growing triumph of liberal reformism, the main instrument of which was the state. Arthur Schlesinger formulated the concept of cycles of American history - the concept of alternating cycles of liberal reforms and periods of conservative consolidation in US history.
In addition, since the late 1950s, the historiography of European countries and the United States began to be influenced by economic and sociological theories - the theory of industrial society and the theory of modernization. In fact, both of them connected the historical path traversed by capitalism with the development of scientific and technological progress. In many ways they continued to develop Rostow's ideas. Following them, American scientists (Daniel Bell, Sbigniew Brzezinski) formed the concept of industrial society and divided human history into several stages:
Pre-industrial society;
Industrial society;
Post-industrial society.
Within the framework of modernization theory, the concept of industrial society was supplemented by factors of social, political and cultural development. In the changing new conditions, in connection with all processes, the shortcomings of ideographic historiography became obvious. The focus on studying exclusively political history also played a certain role. There was dissatisfaction with attempts to reduce a number of social factors, the history of mass movements, and social conflicts.
Under the direct influence of scientific and technological revolution, a process of scientization and optimization of history took place. The direction of New History was formed. Historians of this movement did not oppose history to the natural sciences; on the contrary, they believed in their cooperation. They advocated interdisciplinary research. The main line of updating historical science is the development of interdisciplinary methods: sociological research, methods of the exact sciences. This again led to a revival of epistemological optimism.
In search of new methods, theorists turned to structuralism, the ideas of which were developed by French scientists and were initially used in linguistics, and then were applied to other sciences. Proponents of structuralism saw the mission in eliminating subjectivism as much as possible from the process of cognition. Thus, they proposed to reduce this factor. It is necessary to properly select the object of research, as well as apply new methods in the process of cognition.
For this purpose, they identified a category of unconscious structures that are as free as possible from subjective aspects. They included economic relations, systems of customs and traditions, mythology, beliefs, etc. To eliminate the subjective element, they saw the introduction of many methods drawn from the natural sciences.
The main object of research was social structures, the study of socio-economic problems, mass phenomena, the internal state of society and its individual groups. An interdisciplinary approach and a quantitative method became important elements of the new method.
Quantitative or quantitative history appeared. In the beginning, quantitative history used traditional statistical techniques to confirm certain historical factors. Then the quantitative method began to be used in computer processing of sources. The researcher first built a theoretical model of a process—most often it concerned economic development. Then the statistical data was brought into a form suitable for computer processing, and then the correctness of the theoretical model was checked using a computer. At the same time, the range of sources adapted for research began to expand - population censuses, parish books, marriage contracts.
Thanks to computerization in the West, all office work has become computerized, and this data is no longer paper.
The new economic history has become a wide field for the application of quantitative methods. Within the framework of the new history, a number of new disciplines were formed. The new economic history, in which the main material is expressed in numbers, has become a large field for the application of quantitative methods. New methods also made it possible, on the basis of numerous new and serial sources, to build entire models of individual phenomena and confirm certain theoretical developments.
Another area of application of quantitative analysis was the new political history, in which data from election campaigns began to be analyzed, voting was held in various bodies, the position of political parties was declared, and the electoral behavior of voters was studied. The new social history began to study social structures and social processes in society. It is richest in related research, and the emergence of subdisciplines within this history. There is a new labor history, a history of ethnic minorities, a history of women and gender history, a family history, an urban history, a local history. Quantitative methodology was used, but the main thing was an interdisciplinary approach, and the use of methods from sociology, historical anthropology, psychology, demography and philology. At the same time, historians especially often turned to sociological methods; it was from sociology that content analysis was borrowed. In sociological research, conflict theory was developed.
There was an exchange of ideas between various national schools. In France these were the next generations of the Annales school, in England - the direction of folk history, a group of demographers-historians in Cambridge and Oxford, a number of universities in Germany, centers of social history in the USA, Italian historians. The new historical science has spread in the USA and Latin America. And even the responses by the end of the 1970s reached Soviet historiography. In each national historiography, historical science had its own specifics.
In France these trends appeared earlier than anywhere else. The sociological school of Emile Durkheim and the scientific center of historical synthesis of Henri Beer emerged. Both considered the main task to be historical synthesis based on the close interaction of history and sociology. Under the influence of their ideas, the Annales school was formed in the 1930s, which dominated French historiography for a long time. The new historical science in France was associated with this school, but differed from it in a number of indicators.
Anthropological history has come to the fore in French historiography - the study of everyday life, family history, illnesses, sexual relationships, etc. Also in France, the history of mentalities became widespread. Historical science has blossomed rapidly in the United States, where the development of history began back in the 1950s. The development of theoretical and applied sociology played a major role in this. It was in the USA that Talcott Parsons developed the theory of social conflict. In the USA, the new historical science developed successfully and rapidly, covering all problem areas.
In 1962, an interuniversity consortium for political and social research was created at the University of Michigan. He began collecting new types of sources in the archive, including punch cards and electronic media with data on elections and population censuses. The information concerned not only the USA, but also other countries. By the end of the 1970s, historical research using computer methods was conducted at 600 American universities. Social history is very widely represented in American historical science. Its formation began under the influence of European historiography - the school of annals, new social history.
An important role in its development was played by the mass social movements of the 1960s, which undermined the idea of consensus theory. As part of the new social history in the United States, the history of farming, workers, entrepreneurs, racial and ethnic societies, groups, women's history, the history of social units, family, family ties, the history of socio-territorial communities, towns, cities, and states stood out.
Great Britain had its own prerequisites for the formation of a new historical science. They were founded in the interwar period, when English economic and social history emerged as new historical disciplines. A number of progressive movements - neoliberal, radical democratic, heterodox Marxism - played an important role in the formation of a new historical science in Great Britain. Ultimately, such figures as Eric Hobsbawm, Edward Thompson, George Ruede, who in their research combined the methodology of new approaches with elements of heterodox Marxism, gained widespread recognition.
In Germany, there were difficult conditions for the formation of a new historical science, which was reflected in the victorious triumph of ideographic methods of historiography, within the framework of which it was impossible to bring history closer to other disciplines. Few German scientists advocated this kind of rapprochement. One of them was sociologist Max Weber. Only in the 1960s, in connection with changes in the economy and socio-political life, it became possible to strengthen the neo-Bieral tendency, and a new generation of historians was formed, alien to German idealistic historicism. Works using interdisciplinary approaches appeared - they were written by Werner Konze, then by Hans Rothfels and Theodor Schieder.
In its attention to anthropological problems, the social history of Germany was reminiscent of French social history, but there were also differences - dislike for the Annales school for sympathy for Marxism. At the end of the twentieth century, a school of everyday history emerged in Germany, which reflected the desire to return to telling the story of the little man. The emerging new historical science had both obvious positive and negative sides.
She was able to overcome the extreme subjectivism characteristic of ideographic historiography in the mid-twentieth century.
Based on quantitative methods, she was able to analyze a huge layer of sources, including statistics, homogeneous facts, which was not possible when using the old descriptive method.
Mastering the methodology of other disciplines helped to better understand the events of the past and look at them in connection with the present. The subject and problems of historical research have been updated. Many stereotypical ideas were refuted.
It still has not developed a general theory of the historical process;
The use of an interdisciplinary approach led to an even greater fragmentation of history, to the emergence of a number of subdisciplines;
Language of research. Works, especially on economic history, are replete with a lot of numbers and statistics. Because of this, they are difficult to read not only by amateurs, but also by professionals.
All this led to the rejection and communization of history.
3) Late 1980s - our days .
In the second half of the twentieth century there was a large-scale expansion of interaction between history and other sciences. New objects of historical research arose, a huge array of sources was brought into circulation, and a number of fundamentally new approaches to the analysis of sources, both traditional and new, were developed. But at the same time, the gap between history for professionals and history for everyone else continued to widen. This situation was aggravated by the spread of the postmodernist view of history, the slogan of which is: “Everyone is his own historian.” In this regard, the principle of looking at historical research, which should be based on reliable sources, was no longer supported.
SECOND QUESTION. One of the factors that had a serious impact on processes in the world was globalization. Globalization relates to the economic sphere, but it affects the dynamics of all processes in the world. Communication, computer technologies, and the media are developing rapidly. Globalization has given rise to a number of problems known as global problems. And the question of studying them and methods of solving them was raised a long time ago, back in the late 1960s. The Club of Rome proposed to develop and study the global problems of our time - the threat of a new world war, the problem of growing social inequality in the world between groups of countries, a set of environmental problems, the problem of non-renewable energy resources, the demographic problem, etc.
One of the problems was interest in the historical transformations of climate and landscapes, which resulted in the emergence and development of environmental history. In addition, a noticeable manifestation of the intellectual reaction to globalization has been the growth of research on migration issues, on ethnic self-awareness, and its growth. These global problems were the focus of international congresses held in the 1990s and 2000s.
Efforts to study and understand global processes have led to the emergence of new scientific and educational programs, in particular at the University of Cambridge, which was called “Globalization in Historical Perspective.” It included topics on the history of globalization, the study of global relationships, the history of international institutions related to the process of globalization, and the problem of international history. By interethnic history, the British understood the history of relations between individuals and cultures, including those individuals who simultaneously belong to several cultures, or individuals who change their identity.
It is obvious that in the age of globalization, the position of Europe continues to change. There is a process of revising such concepts as World History and European History. The famous American historian John Gillis, in his report “On the State of the Study of European History in American Universities,” stated the uncertainty of what the history of Europe is, and what Europe is in general. The very face of Europe is changing. Secondly, Europe's relationship with the rest of the world is obviously changing. Europe has lost its central position both spatially and temporally. It has ceased to serve as a model and measure of progress. But no other regional history has taken the place of European history as a historical model.
As for the dominance of the new historical science, it ended in the 1980s. At the end of the twentieth century, the process of humanization of history unfolded. By the beginning of the 21st century, many theorists were talking about a serious change in the image of the historical discipline and the profession of historian. This situation in the literature is assessed as an anthropological revolution, which has a number of properties:
1) There is an obvious rejection of the spirit of scientism and its attendant macroproblematics. Awareness of the heterogeneity of culture has led to the actualization of research at the micro level.
2) The most important feature of the anthropological revolution was the humanization of history, namely the return of circumstances to human culture. Mark Block wrote about this. In the time of Marc Bloch this was impossible, but then times changed, and in many countries disciplines emerged that dealt with the history of mentality in France, the history of everyday life in Germany, social history in Great Britain, and microhistory in Italy.
3) Instead of the concept that a historian should be objective, they again started talking about the need for constant self-reflection. The historian is required to constantly remember himself in the process of cognition; ideas about the dialogue between the historian and the source are widely used. A large place is occupied by the problems of interpretation of the text and its adequate reading or discourse of the text. Discourse is understood as the internal world of a text, the laws of existence and functioning inherent in a particular text.
4) An important principle of modern historiography has become the changing form of presentation. The trend is to return from a scientific style to a more literary – narrative one. Narrative is a narrative form of presentation of material using not so much a scientific, but a literary style of presentation. The story is enhanced throughout by narrative elements, the goal being a powerful presentation that appeals to the reader's mind and senses.
5) Taken as a given pluralism in relation to other concepts. There is a recognition of the undeniable value of different concepts, a rethinking of many approaches, while none of them should be absolutized. On the contrary, the diversity of meanings presupposes their dialogue. Continuity, the possibility of choosing methodology and analysis are emphasized, and a synthesis of traditions is proclaimed. Researchers identified the features of this new approach in two classic works of the first half of the 1980s. Their authors are American researchers Natalie Zemon Davis and her work “The Return of Martin Guerra”, and the second work is the essay “The Great Execution of the Cat” by Princeton professor Robert Danton. He included this essay as one of the chapters in the book “The Cat Massacre and Other Episodes of French Cultural History.”
In both cases, historians took a funny episode and built concepts from it with far-reaching implications. The book “The Return of Martin Guerre” is based on an amusing incident in 16th-century France. In a southern French village, local resident Martin Guerre disappeared. As it turned out later, he went to fight for Spain. A few years later, his double appeared, who completely replaced him, even in the family. His name was Arnaud de Till. And everyone recognized him as Martin Guerre. Until the denunciation appeared, everything was revealed, and the double was sentenced to death. His side filed an appeal, the case ended up in the Toulouse Parliament. Here the appeal was completely decided in favor of the impostor, but the real Martin Herr appeared, and Arno de Till was hanged.
Natalie Zemon Davis began to reconstruct the motives for this man's actions. She reconstructed images and standards of behavior in the southern regions of France. As a result, she painted images of two marginalized people with an identity crisis, who could not organically fit into the life of their villages, where they happened to be born and raised.
The author of the essay “The Great Execution of the Cat,” Professor Robert Danton, took the events of the 1730s. There they were talking about Nicolas Comte, who served as an apprentice in a printing house. He and his friend were not seated at the table with the owners; they were fed poorly. As a result, they began to organize cat concerts under the windows of their owners at night, preventing them from sleeping. The owner instructed them to deal with the cats, and they killed the owner’s favorite cat and staged the execution ritual.
Robert Danton wondered about the nature of this fun. This is an indicator of the distance separating us from the workers of the 18th century. This story is an occasion to reflect on a different mentality from the modern one, to study someone else’s system.
The historian interpreted this incident as an indirect manifestation of social tension in the relationship between the apprentices and the master's family. The social status of apprentices in the 18th century decreased; previously they were junior members of the family, and now they found themselves in the position of pets. And they began to fight the animals, in particular the cat.
Danton began to study the mentality of the urban lower classes and sought to reconsider traditional positions in relation to the French Revolution. The mentality of the urban lower classes during the years of the Great French Revolution was more likely determined by old mental traditions than by new revolutionary views.
Ultimately, at the turn of two centuries, another period of methodological searches in history began, during which new concepts should be born, scientific strategies should be formed, and an example of this is the new cultural history that is now emerging and the fourth generation of the Annales school in French historiography. The face of the historical discipline and its position in society are changing and will continue to change. In the 19th century, the public and social status of history and the historian was high, but the 20th century and the understanding of its dramatic experience undermined the belief in the benefits and status of history as a teacher, and society as a diligent student. However, the junction marked at the turn of the millennium can return history to its lost position, its central place in the social sciences.
The purpose of public history is to spread ideas about the craft of a historian beyond the narrow scientific circle. At the present stage, historians are asked a number of questions, the answers to which may or may not be found. What will be the place of history in the system of scientific disciplines, in the cultural hierarchy of society, what happens to the functions of historical knowledge, will history be able to provide answers to the processes of globalization, to the development of new technologies, what should be the tasks of historians? Can history continue to teach life? These and other problems are recognized by all leading historical schools, which may hold different views.
NEW SCIENTIFIC HISTORY IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE USA IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XX CENTURY
Economic, social, political processes. Coexistence of various forms of production in European and American countries. The genesis of capitalism, its concepts. The role of colonial conquests and colonialism in the process of the genesis of capitalism. Formation of the world market. Regions of early and late genesis of capitalism. Paths of development of capitalism in individual countries.
Industry. The rise of manufacturing capitalism. The role of merchant capital in the manufacturing period. Folding of the domestic market. Improving the means of communication. Shifts in population.
Agrarian system of Europe and North America. Various types of agrarian evolution in Europe in the 17th-18th centuries. Agrarian dualism and its characteristic features. Capitalist structure in agriculture.
Slave farming in South and North America. Slavery of modern times, its character and distinctive features.
State political orders. Forms of statehood. Absolutism, the birth of bureaucracy. Class system.
The impact of economic shifts on traditional segments of the urban and rural population in various countries of Europe and America. Social movements during the period of manufacturing capitalism.
Nobility in the first centuries of modern times, forms of adaptation to new economic conditions of the 17th-18th centuries.
The formation and strengthening of the bourgeoisie, its characteristic features.
Culture. The dominant role of the church and religion in spiritual life at the beginning of modern times. System and content of education. Literacy Rate. Universities.
Folk culture, its components. National holidays, their social function. The offensive of the Catholic and Protestant churches on popular culture. Folk culture in modern historiography.
Features of mass consciousness in early modern times. “The Great Fear” (“witch hunt”) as a socio-psychological phenomenon. European freethinking (“libertinism”).
Scientific revolution. The development of astronomy, mechanics, mathematics and the emergence of a natural science picture of the world. N. Copernicus, G. Galileo, R. Descartes, I. Newton. Worldview shifts as a consequence of the birth of a new science. Scientific discussions. Spread of private and public scientific societies. Rationalism, its penetration into public consciousness and artistic creativity. Mechanism in social thought of the 17th-18th centuries.
Main trends in art and literature. Baroque as an artistic movement on a European scale. Classicism. Ideological and aesthetic principles. The heyday of classicism in France in the 17th century.
Education. The Enlightenment as a European and American ideological movement. Its time and geographical scope. Genres of educational literature.
Social, political and ideological origins of the Enlightenment. Education and development of natural science knowledge. Enlightenment and religion. The main features of educational thought. A look at a person. The theory of "natural law". New ethics. State concept. Social and economic views. Enlightenment as a theory of social reconstruction. The idea of progress Various directions in the Enlightenment, its features in individual countries. The degree of dissemination of Enlightenment ideas in various strata of society.
Reforms of the second half of the 18th century. (“Enlightened absolutism”). Absolute monarchy in Europe by the middle of the 18th century. Changes in the state apparatus. Power in the center and locally. Powerful prerogatives of the church and lords. State and church in Catholic and Protestant countries of Europe.
“Enlightened absolutism” as a pan-European policy of modernization (self-reform) of the “old order”. Ideological justification for the new policy of monarchies.
The program and goals of reforms, their initiators and conductors. Areas of reform activity, its common features and differences in individual countries. The results of the policy of “enlightened absolutism”.
