"Chapter 19 METHODS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH Methods of historical research are traditionally divided into two large groups: general methods of scientific research and special historical ... "

-- [ Page 1 ] --

HISTORICAL RESEARCH METHODS

Methods of historical research are traditionally divided into two

large groups: general methods of scientific research and special historical methods. However, it must be borne in mind that such a division is somewhat arbitrary. For example, the so-called "historical" method is used not only by historians,

but also representatives of various natural and social sciences.

The task of the general methodology of scientific knowledge is to give a system of general theoretical principles for solving the set tasks and problems.

For this reason, it is much more difficult to write about methodological methods of research than about specific methods of collecting factual material or source analysis. The latter also implies the presence of certain skills and efforts aimed at acquiring them. However, to master such skills in a certain sense is much easier. These skills are acquired in special practical classes, for example, in paleography, sphragistics, source study; when studying any special course(for example, by analyzing ancient documents) or on an archaeological and ethnographic expedition under the guidance of an experienced mentor. Figuratively speaking, methodology is a “tactic”, while methodology is a “strategy” of scientific research.

For this reason, the methodology is not so much a set of some strict mandatory technical rules and procedures (although this side must be taken into account), but rather a set of common ideas, approaches and principles, which cannot be comprehended in the same way as the specific methods of collecting material or its source criticism. In this regard, J. Tosh wrote that “the rules of research cannot be reduced to a single formula, and specific analysis procedures vary depending on the nature of the source” (Tosh 2000: 102). The use of one method or another can best be illustrated by the work of major historians of the past and present. Apparently, the study of the works of predecessors, an attempt to slightly open the door to the creative laboratory of a venerable researcher or his school is the most correct way to comprehend this or that Chapter 19. Methods of historical research of the method. True, it must be borne in mind that often outstanding scientists use not one method, but several at once, more precisely, even a system of methods, so it is not always possible to immediately understand what belongs to one method and what to another.

There is a fairly large number of general scientific and special methods that are used in conducting historical research.

Narrative method (sometimes called descriptive-narrative). History was, and in many ways still is, a narrative of events. It is no coincidence that the name itself historical science comes from the word story - a story, a story.

Even at the end of the XIX century. Ch. Langlois and Ch. Segnobos called history the science of "glue and scissors" (Langlois, Segnobos 2004). The task of the historian was reduced, in their opinion, to the collection of facts in the archives and their installation into a single narrative. In this case, “by itself” a holistic description of the past and theoretical conclusions should be obtained.

This method is used by many historians to this day.

Accordingly, the narrative method is important, although not sufficient, for presenting historical facts. By itself, the story of events (narrative) implies a certain sequence, which is built according to a certain logic of the events themselves. The historian interprets this chain of events on the basis of certain causal relationships, established facts, etc. The conclusions obtained are important for the initial analysis of a historical event or era. However, this is clearly not enough for a deep insight into the essence of events. But, on the other hand, without such a coherent presentation, a deeper analysis is simply impossible. Here it would be appropriate to recall the well-known rule that “research without theory is blind, and theory without research is empty” (Bourdieu, Wacquant 1992: 162). Ideally, the description of the collected sources and the synthesis of the data should be closely related to each other.

Historical (historical-genetic) method. In the first decades of the XIX century. acquired mature features and the principle of historicism became widespread (see chapter 2 of this edition).

The famous historian and philosopher of history F. Meinecke (1862-1954) believed that the emergence of historicism was one of the most significant intellectual upheavals in Western historical science. It has even been compared to a "scientific revolution" in the Kuhnian sense (Igers 1984: 31–41).

388 Theory and Methodology of History The principle of historicism means consideration of any phenomenon in its development: origin, formation and death. Historicism as a way of understanding the past, the present and the probable future requires looking for the roots of all phenomena in the past; understand that there is continuity between eras, and each era must be evaluated from the point of view of its historical features and opportunities. As a result, it was possible to look at society as something integral and interconnected, and integrity allows a deeper understanding of its individual elements.

At the same time, the historical method of studying events, phenomena and processes also developed. The very name of this method clearly indicates its essence - the study of changes when considering a particular phenomenon, institution, process, etc. For historians, turning to the past is not some special method. The past is the subject of the historian's research, and therefore, from the point of view of the modern ideology of historians, it is not entirely logical to separate its study into some special historical method, since any method used by the historian has a historical orientation. However, when analyzing the transformation of institutions, phenomena and processes, it is important to establish causal relationships in the process of historical change in the phenomenon or process under study. At the same time, it is important in vast multitude various processes and events to highlight those that are most relevant to the task.

The historical method is widely used in other sciences as well.

Thus, lawyers use the historical method to study the formation of a system of law, a particular set of laws and rules. This can be illustrated by the example of changes in the legal status of the medieval Russian peasantry in the process of gradual enslavement. An engineer can use the historical method to study the development of technology, such as shipbuilding or the construction of bridges and high-rise buildings.

One way or another, the study of the past contributes to a better understanding of the present. Quite often, at the intersection of addressing the past (the subject of history) and some kind of social science, a boundary discipline arises (economic history, historical demography, historical sociology, history of state and law, etc.). The interdisciplinary nature of such research lies in the fact that the traditional subject of research is

torika (the past) are superimposed by research methods from other sciences (economics, demography, etc.; see examples of such research in chapters 7, 8, 10, 12).

A vivid example of the use of the historical (historical and genetic) method is the works of the representatives of the Annales school F. Aries "Man in the face of death" (1992; see also about this book in Chapter 14) and J. Le Goff "The Birth of Purgatory" (2009). Aries used a wide variety of sources:

iconographic data, tombstones and epitaphs, painting, literary sources. He showed that ideas about death in Western Europe have undergone over time significant changes. If in a barbarian society death was perceived as a natural necessity, then today it has become a largely taboo concept.

In the second work, Le Goff showed that, it turns out, the ideas of purgatory appeared among the people of the Middle Ages only between the 11th and 13th centuries. Officially, Pope Innocent IV recognized purgatory in 1254. However, at the ordinary level, these ideas existed earlier. The French historian believes that the emergence of these ideas was due to the commercialization of society, the desire of people associated with money - usurers, merchants - to find hope for salvation in the afterlife. In fact, both examples demonstrate that collective beliefs can change significantly over time.

One of the most striking examples of the use of the historical genetic method is the famous work of M. Weber "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism", in which this historian and sociologist discovers the roots of modern capitalist ethics and ideology (on Weber, see also Chapter 5). Another good example of the use of this method is P. Mantoux's monograph "The Industrial Revolution of the 18th century in England."

The author of the study shows a number of prerequisites that led to the commission of this revolution in England. In particular, Mantoux makes excursions into the history of the creation of steam engines, which began as early as the 17th century, reveals the features of the English scattered manufactory, in whose environment the first machines were born (John Kay's shuttle loom, James Hargreves' Jenny mechanical spinning wheel), explores the peculiarities of English legislation, which introduced a ban on the import of Indian cotton fabrics into England, which greatly contributed to the growth of the production of such fabrics in England. He also describes the process of Arkwright's first factories (which was connected with the peculiarities of English patent law), etc. (Mantoux 1937). As a result, the reader is confronted with a complex, but quite understandable set of factors that ensured the emergence of a completely new phenomenon in history: the industrial revolution in England. Below we will return to this issue.

Another option for using the historical method is the so-called "retrospective" ("regressive", "reconstruction") method. Its essence lies in relying on historical states of society that are closer to the researcher for a better understanding of the state in the past. Thus, the past is interpreted or reconstructed on the basis of some theoretical premises or knowledge about a later state of a given or similar phenomenon or process. This method was used, in particular, by K. Marx in the analysis of the genesis of capitalism. "Human anatomy is the key to monkey anatomy."

A similar approach was fully applied by M. Blok in the study of the medieval agrarian system in France. In order to understand the agrarian structure of medieval France, Blok suggests relying on data from a later time (18th century), which give a complete picture of the French countryside. In the section "Introduction.

A few remarks on the method” he describes in detail the essence of this method: “The historian is always a slave to his documents, and most of all he who has devoted himself to agricultural research; for fear of not understanding the incomprehensible past, he most often has to read history in reverse order ... The reverse method, reasonably applied, does not at all require a photograph of the near past, which then is enough to project unchanged in order to obtain a frozen image of more and more distant centuries. He only pretends to start with the last part of the film and then try to show it in reverse order, resigned to the fact that there will be many gaps, but determined not to disturb its movement” (Bloch 1978: xxviii–xxix).

Chapter 19

The historical method is often associated with the reconstruction of events using special methods and using general logical and heuristic methods. R. Collingwood (1889-1943), who was both a historian and a philosopher of history, wrote that the historian is very often similar in his methods to an investigator who must solve a crime. Like an investigator, the historian tries to collect all the factual evidence and on its basis, using imagination, logic and deduction, build hypotheses that do not contradict the facts (Collingwood 1980).

One of the results of applying the historical method is the creation of periodization.

Periodization is very important for a historian, and not only for one who studies material over a sufficiently long time interval. Any long historical process, such as revolution, war, modernization, colonization, is always divided into periods, each of which has its own characteristics. This allows a deeper understanding of the course of the historical process within the framework of the volume of data under study, to streamline the facts, and makes it possible to stick to the natural outline of the presentation.

Periodization is a special kind of systematization, which consists in the conditional division of the historical process into certain chronological periods. These periods have certain distinctive features, which are determined depending on the chosen basis (criterion) of periodization. Known great amount various periodizations of history.

A variety of grounds are chosen for periodization: from changing the nature of ideas and thinking to ecological transformations and intercultural interaction. Many scholars note its great significance for history and other social sciences (see, for example: Gellner 1988; Bentley 2001; Gellner 2001; Greene 2001; Grinin 2006; McNeill 2001; Rozov 2001a; Stearns 2001, etc.).

It is important to bear in mind that periodization deals with extremely complex processes and therefore inevitably coarsens and simplifies historical reality. Some scientists oppose the concepts of process and stage, considering them mutually exclusive (see, for example: Sztompka 1996: 238). However, one can agree with R. Carneiro that the opposition of process and stages is a false dichotomy (Carneiro 2000), since stages are components of an ongoing process, and the concept of process can serve to develop the concept of stages.

392 Theory and methodology of history In other words, any periodization (like any systematization) suffers from one-sidedness and some discrepancies with reality. “However, these simplifications can serve as arrows pointing to significant points” (Jaspers 1994: 52). Subject to the necessary methodological rules and procedures, it is possible to minimize these shortcomings of periodization and at the same time increase its heuristic efficiency.

There are certain rules for constructing historical periodizations.

rule same bases, according to which the construction of periodization requires, when distinguishing periods equal in taxonomic significance, to proceed from the same criteria. Unfortunately, this rule is not observed very often, so many periodizations do not have clear criteria, the chosen bases are either incomprehensible or completely arbitrary and inconsistent; often the foundations of periodization are eclectic and change from stage to stage.

The hierarchy rule is that with complex periodization, that is, one where large steps are subdivided into smaller stages (and such fragmentation, in principle, can have several levels - period, stage, etc.), the periods of each subsequent level of division should be taxonomically less important than the periods of the previous level.

The rule of equivalence of periods of one stage of division indicates the need to characterize each period with approximately the same completeness. In practice, some theorists distinguish a number of periods only with the aim of highlighting one of them. This, in particular, applies to post-industrial sociologists, such as, for example, D. Bell and E. Toffler, in whom periodization acts as a kind of intro to the main theme (to show the features of a new post-industrial society that is replacing the industrial one).

In the first chapters, devoted to various theories of the historical process, examples were given of many periodizations that have been used by various historians, philosophers and other thinkers since late antiquity. Periodization is still widely used Ancient world- Middle Ages - New time, the origins of which go back to the Renaissance. Initially, the idea was that society was returning to the values ​​of Antiquity (Renaissance).

Chapter 19

Later, in the 17th century, it was rethought by the German historian H. Keller (Kellarius, Cellarius) (1634–1706), who extended the Eurocentric scheme to the entire world history. This was acceptable for Western science of the time. Indeed, in the XVII-XVIII centuries. very little was known about the other stories.

However, the division into the above three periods is not typical for other regions of the world (this is one of the reasons for the criticism of the so-called Eurocentrism, which was discussed in chapters 3, 5, etc.). In many non-European countries, other periodizations are used (in particular, Chinese historians prefer to use the old periodization by dynasties).

Attempts to connect this periodization with Marxism (three formations plus "recent" history after 1917) have led to strong stretches in it. It was necessary to invent slavery and feudalism in the East, to invent a “slave revolution”, etc. At the same time, in fact, the Soviet (this tradition is partly preserved in Russian science) and Western “Keller” periodizations diverged just as the Julian Orthodox and Gregorian Catholic calendars diverged .

The basis of periodization may be other criteria, depending on the task and aspect of the study. Thus, for W. McNeil, the main criterion is the diffusion of military technological information and other innovations that are important for all mankind (McNeil 2004; 2008). He identifies the following periods and stages in world history.

1. The period of cultural dominance of the Near East (before 500 BC). It begins with the genesis of civilization in Mesopotamia and Egypt and ends with the spread of secondary civilizations in China, India and Greece.

2. The period of the Eurasian cultural balance (500 BC - 1500 AD). The period begins with the expansion of Hellenism (500–146 BC), which ended with the formation of a single Eurasian ecumene (by 200 AD) and the great migration of barbarians (200–600). This is followed by the stage of the Muslim response (according to MacNeil, "The Renaissance of the Near East", 600-1500) and the time of steppe conquests and the spread of empires (1000-1500).

3. The period of Western dominance (from 1500 to the middle of the 20th century), which begins with the Challenge to the East (1500–1700), which led to a precarious world balance (1700–1850) and Western dominance (after 1850). ).

394 Theory and methodology of history A similar approach was chosen by J. Bentley (2001), who singled out six periods in world history based on intercultural interaction.

1. Early period complex societies(3500-2000 BC) is characterized by the domestication of the horse, the appearance of sailing ships, the beginning of the exchange between the states of the Near and Far East through nomads.

2. The period of ancient civilizations (2000-500 BC) consists of several waves of diffusions (bronze, chariots, iron). During this period, large agricultural empires arise, alphabetic writing spreads, large-scale migrations of nomadic and semi-nomadic peoples take place.

3. The period of classical civilizations (500 BC - 500 AD) is distinguished by the enlargement and improvement of large states, the emergence of world religions, the strengthening of nomads and the formation of large steppe empires, the establishment of a complex network of trade routes, including number of the Silk Road.

4. Postclassic period (500-1000) begins with the spread of Islam. During this period, three large centers dominate (Abbasids, Byzantium, Tang), trade develops in Indian Ocean, Sub-Saharan Africa is turned on, world religions are diffusing.

5. The period of trans-regional nomadic empires (1000-1500) - the time of domination in the Old World of transcontinental nomadic empires, especially the Mongol one; establishing direct contacts between West and East, a global plague epidemic.

6. The modern period (since 1500) is counted from the Great geographical discoveries and is characterized by the expansion of Western civilization, the involvement of all parts of the world in large-scale economic, technological, cultural exchanges.

Comparative method. Comparison is one of the basic principles of scientific knowledge of the world. Observing recurring phenomena, since ancient times, people have tried to understand the reasons for this.

As a result, they had answers to certain questions. The logical basis of the comparative method is analogy.

Analogy is the similarity of objects and phenomena. The way of thinking by analogy assumes that with external similarity, the properties and features characteristic of one object are transferred to others. This is one of the most common thought mechanisms.

Chapter 19

However, the analogy is not sufficient to explain the similarity. This requires deep scientific analysis. Such an analysis can be done just by means of a comparative method.

Its premise is that many natural and social phenomena are repeated, although the latter are far from being as obvious as the former. The task of the researcher is to understand the reasons for this recurrence. Therefore, the comparative method is one of the most common methods in the social sciences.

History is no exception. Most historians deal with individual phenomena of the past. However, it is important to identify the general patterns of development of various cultural phenomena. For this reason, historians most often use the comparative method in their research (Melkonyan 1981). Sometimes it is called comparative-historical (Kovalchenko 1987).

An example of the use of the comparative method is the fundamental work of B. N. Mironov on the social history of Russia in modern times. Throughout the work, the author compares Russia with the countries of Europe and comes to the conclusion that our country developed with a certain delay. For this reason, what seems to many researchers to be the shortcomings and even vices of Russian society, “no more and no less than growing pains and stages of development: when compared with more mature societies, many features seem to be shortcomings, and when compared with younger ones, they are advantages” ( Mironov 1999, v. 2: 303). Therefore, Mironov believes, it is incorrect to make synchronous comparisons between Western European countries and Russia.

The comparative method was actively used in the works of F. Braudel on the economic history of the Mediterranean and other topics. However, in the three-volume work “Material Civilization, Economy and Capitalism” F. Braudel actively used not only the comparative method, but also the historical (historical-genetic), showing the states preceding the analyzed phenomena, as well as the emergence of capitalism at different levels of society (other examples of the use of the comparative method, see

in chapters 5, 6, 8, 11, etc.).

In the study of primitive society, there was a whole discussion about what, how and with what can be compared. The participants of the discussion came to the conclusion that the incorrect use of external analogies can lead to unjustified conclusions. According to this theory and methodology of history, it is necessary to observe a number of obligatory principles of comparative historical analysis. The main conditions are comparisons under the conditions of a single (or as close as possible) object: economic and cultural type, close time period and approximately comparable stage level of development of the studied society and the society used as an analogue (Pershits 1979).

A point of view was expressed about the need to distinguish between peoples who, to one degree or another, have already experienced the influence of more developed societies. Such primitive societies were proposed to be called synpoliteins (from the Greek "syn" - simultaneous and "polity" - society, state, city, that is, "synchronous to the state").

For this reason, when reconstructing societies of classical pre-state primitiveness - apopoliteic societies (from the Greek "apo" - to) - it must be remembered that synpolyteic societies are just analogues of apopoliteic societies and therefore, in this case, comparative historical research should be supplemented by the historical genetic method (Pershits, Khazanov 1978). In foreign literature, there is a similar distinction between colonial and pre-colonial societies.

It follows from the foregoing that the comparative method has analytical foundations in common with the historical method, since both are based on comparison. Only the historical method involves a comparison of the diachronic states of the object under study, while the comparative method can use different types of comparisons. According to C. Tilly, several types of different comparisons can be distinguished (Tilly 1983). Individualizing comparisons are when all the examples involved serve only as auxiliary to explain the main form considered by the researcher. Apparently, this kind of comparison is close to what is called case study in the social sciences. This kind of comparison is characteristic of the works of many historians. They consider some particular case and give relevant or contrasting examples to support the thesis being proved.

An example of individualizing comparisons is the book by M. Blok "Kings-Wonderworkers" (1998). In this work, a French researcher asks why people believed in the miraculous abilities of French and English kings.

Chapter 19

lei heal the sick with scrofula. He refers to a large number of examples from early medieval history and ethnography, starting with the famous work of J. Fraser " golden branch(Block 1998: 122–124 et seq.) and as a result comes to a conclusion that was paradoxical for that time. The mentality and ideas about the sacredness of power in the era of the first French kings were much closer to ethnographic cultures than to European rational man. Kings were considered carriers of supernatural abilities, they were intermediaries between the worlds of the sacred and the profane (for more details, see: Kradin 2004:

137-148). Over time, ideas about royalty have been transformed, but belief in some miraculous qualities has remained.

Variable comparisons have a different purpose. They should show the general and special features of the cases under consideration. For example, if a researcher compares Western European chivalry and Japanese samurai, with this approach he singles out common features characteristic of both institutions, as well as their individual, unique special features. A good example of this method is T. Earle's How Leaders Come to Power (Earle 1997). The author uses three main examples in his work - the pre-state societies of Northern Europe, the Peruvian coast and Hawaii (the regions in which he worked). For all the main aspects considered in the book (ecology, economics, ideology, etc.), a comparison is made, which is supplemented by facts from other regions of the world. As a result, the author creates a complete picture of the variability of the historical process on the way to the early state. In the same vein, the book of the Canadian archaeologist B. Trigger “Comprehension early civilizations» (Trigger 2003). The author selected six examples of ancient centers of politogenesis (Maya, Incas, Benin, Mesopotamia, Egypt, China) and compared them in more than twenty indicators: economy, trade, urbanization, kinship system, law, cosmology, art, architecture, etc.

Perhaps one of the most famous examples of the use of the comparative method is T. Skocpol's famous work, The State and Social Revolution: A Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (Skocpol 1979; see also Chapter 8 on this). Despite the fact that the revolutions under consideration have different temporal and civilizational foundations, the author not only finds common features between the selected examples (the agrarian character of the old regimes, successful results, etc.)

), but also comes to new conceptual generalizations. Comparisons of even quite different cases (such as the three revolutions mentioned above) may raise new questions, which in turn will make it possible to offer other interpretations and generalizations of the events under discussion. Similar comparisons sometimes referred to as contrast.

Finally, spanning comparisons include a large number of cases and highlight the plurality of forms present.

An example of the use of such a method is the well-known book by G. Niebuhr "Slavery as a system of economy" (1907). The author summarized all known ethnographic cases of the use of slave labor. After that, he turned to their interpretation.

Explaining his scientific method, Niebuhr wrote more than a century ago:

“Many ethnologists use a rather strange method. They have some theory obtained by deductive reasoning, and to it they attach a few facts in the form of an illustration ... The only scientific method is to collect facts impartially and investigate whether they can be brought under some general rule! (Niebuhr 1907: 8–9). In general, this work is close in spirit to cross-cultural methods (for which see Chapter 21).

It should be noted that it is in anthropological science (in our country it is often called ethnology) that the comparative method occupies a special place. Many anthropologists have emphasized the significance of this method for their science. “The only feature that distinguishes each branch of anthropology and is not characteristic of any other of the human sciences is the use of comparative data. The historian deals, as a rule, with the history of England, or Japan, or the nineteenth century, or the Renaissance. If he is engaged in a systematic comparison of moments in history various countries, periods or directions, he becomes a philosopher of history or an anthropologist!” (Kluckhohn 1998: 332). A classic example applications in anthropology of the comparative method are the works of G. Spencer (1820-1903) or the famous work of James Fraser (1854-1941) "The Golden Bough" - a book in which a huge amount of information about various cults and religious beliefs is collected and analyzed in comparison.

Chapter 19

That is why the comparative method is often used in the works of researchers gravitating toward a historical and anthropological understanding of history (the Annals school, social history, etc.). The effect of using this method is so great that it often opens up new perspectives in the study of classical topics and trends. Thus, the use of comparative ethnographic data allowed A. Ya. Gurevich to take a completely new look at the nature of European feudalism (1970;

1972). Similar prospects opened up when using the comparative method in relation to the ancient Scythians (Khazanov 1975), Ancient Russia(Froyanov 1980; 1999), ancient and medieval civilizations of the East (Vasiliev 1983).

The books by V.P. Ilyushechkin (1986; 1990 and others) can be considered an example of the use of the comparative method. Ilyushechkin was one of the most thoughtful critics of the five formations scheme in Soviet science. He collected a huge amount of empirical information that refuted the then ideas that slavery existed in antiquity, and in the Middle Ages - serfdom and feudalism. V. I. Ilyushechkin, in particular, showed that slavery not only existed, but also played an important role in the Middle Ages and the New Age. Yu. M. Kobishchanov's works on the polyud theory can serve as another example of the application of the comparative approach. Back in the 1970s. he found similarities between the Old Russian polyud and similar institutions in Africa. Later, he expanded the range of historical parallels, which made it possible to create a holistic concept of one of the important mechanisms for the institutionalization of power in the era of politogenesis (Kobishchanov 1994; 2009). In the end, the comparative method created the basis for the formation of a cross-cultural methodology.

The typological method is one of the most important methods used in the social and human sciences. Like the comparative method, it is based on comparison. It also allows you to identify groups of similar phenomena and processes, which is achieved through a schematic representation of concrete historical reality in the form of logical models - the so-called "ideal types". The value of such types is not so much in the exact correspondence of empirical reality as in the ability to understand and explain (many examples of this kind are given in chapters 6-8, 18 and others).

400 Theory and Methodology of History This is where typology differs from ordinary classification. The latter is based on grouping real objects according to certain criteria. For example, an archaeologist can create a classification by sorting artifacts into groups based on certain selected criteria. Typology is based on the creation of mental objects in the mind of the researcher. A type is an ideal construction that reflects the most important features and connections of the phenomenon under study. In this case, other features that are not included in the number of essential parameters of the model may be ignored. Moreover, it may happen that particular objects can have traits of several types. This can be illustrated by the example of four classical types of temperament distinguished in psychology: sanguine, choleric, phlegmatic, melancholic. In reality, specific individuals may have features of both one and several temperaments. Try to distribute your friends and acquaintances into these groups, and you will understand that not everyone fits into the canons prescribed in the textbooks.

The famous three ideal types of domination by M. Weber - traditional, rational and charismatic - are considered a classic example of typology. The traditional is based on the observance of traditional norms and belief in the sacred functions of power, the rational is based on the observance of rational and legitimate rules by the bureaucracy, the charismatic is on the belief in supernatural abilities leader. In reality, the phenomena under study may not always correspond to ideal types. Take, for example, a figure political leader. It can combine features of two or even all three forms of domination. Thus, the modern British monarchy combines elements of traditional and rational domination, but is not without a certain charismatic halo. However, as Weber himself repeatedly emphasized, the more "alien" ideal types are, the better they express their heuristic functions. The essence of typology is not to sort out all the studied objects, but to better understand the variability of the observed phenomena and their essence.

It is no coincidence that the typology of the three forms of domination has not lost its appeal and is actively used in modern research representatives of various social sciences (including, of course, in historical research). Majority

Chapter 19

developed in the humanities theories are represented by ideal types. In fact, such concepts as "feudalism", "tribe", "chiefdom", "state", "city", etc., are ideal types.

Among the representatives of the sciences of the past, archaeologists pay especially close attention to the development of the typological method (Klein 1991). For this discipline, this method is especially important, since archaeologists deal with a large array of artifacts obtained in the course of excavations. The work of an archaeologist is inconceivable without a preliminary stage of processing and ordering the excavated sources. Moreover, since things change over time (look at changes in clothing, for example), the shape of objects can indicate the time of their appearance or existence among people. This became the basis for the use of typology as one of the possible dating methods in archeology. For a more in-depth study of the typological method, it is best to refer to the following collective works in Russian:

"Types in Culture" (1979), "Problems of Typology in Ethnography"

(1979), as well as to the book by L. S. Klein (1991).

However, not only archaeologists used the typological method in their research. Various historians have also used the typological method in their writings. There are widely known discussions about the typology of feudalism in the works of Soviet medievalists. The most popular typology was based on the principle of correlation between the ancient (Romanesque) and barbarian (Germanic) components in the political culture of early medieval societies. This led to the identification of three types: 1) with a predominance of the Romanesque beginning (Italy and Spain); 2) synthesis version ( Frankish state); 3) with a predominance of the barbarian beginning (England, Scandinavia) (Lublinskaya 1967).

Another well-known example among specialists in ancient history is the typology of the early state. The basic principles of this typology were outlined in the book The Early State edited by H. Klassen and P. Skalnik (Claessen, Skalnik 1978). The authors understand the early state as "a centralized sociopolitical organization for the regulation of social relations in a complex stratified society, divided into at least two main strata, or emerging social class- on the rulers and the ruled, the relationship between which is characterized by the political dominance of the former and by the tributary duties of the latter; the legitimacy of these relations is consecrated by a single ideology, the main principle of which is the mutual exchange of services” (Claessen, Skalnik 1978: 640).

The editors identified three types of early states according to the degree of maturity - rudimentary (inchoate), typical (typical) and transitional (transitional) (Ibid.: 22, 641). Early states must transform into mature forms of the pre-industrial state (mature state), in which there is a developed bureaucracy and private property (Claessen 2000). This typology shows how society has been transformed in the process of creating and strengthening the state. It is clear that in reality states could include features of several types, but such a typology allows us to more clearly see the differences and different evolutionary trajectories in different early states. It also makes it possible to more clearly determine the factors (environmental, historical, technological, etc.) that determined the reasons for choosing one or another polygenetic type and development path. It also allows a deeper understanding of why only some of the early states could reach a higher evolutionary type (level) of statehood, developed statehood, and why mature states necessarily (unlike the early ones) had a bureaucratic apparatus.

structural method. The Latin word structura means "structure, arrangement." This method is based on the identification of stable links within the system that ensure its preservation. basic properties. Hence its closeness to the system method. It is no coincidence that in the social sciences there is such a trend as structural functionalism.

The origins of structuralism go back to the work of the linguist Ferdinand de Saussure (1857–1913) and the sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917). An important contribution to its development was made by the British anthropologist A. Radcliffe-Brown (1881–1955) and the Soviet folklorist V. Ya. Propp (1895–1970). The most detailed structuralism for the social sciences of the twentieth century. was developed by the French professor Claude Lévi-Strauss (1908–2009). His book Structural Anthropology was published in Russian (1985). According to Levi-Strauss, every phenomenon or process hides structural connections that are not recognized by everyday experience. The task of the anthropologist is to reveal the structure of these connections. Levi-Strauss developed this method on the example of myths, totemism, rituals. VPO

Chapter 19

consequently the method was applied to unconscious structures in psychology.

Structuralism received particular development in linguistics, where specialists (long before Levi-Strauss) showed that there is a set of rules grammatical transformations to which all languages ​​obey. In addition, all languages ​​have special sign systems. The meaning of each symbol (word) is determined by its structural place, in accordance with the existing binary oppositions. In other words, the meaning of a word comes not from physical properties, but from a structural relationship with another word, often opposite in meaning (hot - cold, up - down, left - right, etc.). Subsequently, such ideas were developed in the semiotic approach in the works of R. Barth (1915–1980) and Yu. M. Lotman (1922–1993) and had an important impact on historical science in the field of source criticism of texts. This became the basis of deconstructivism, which broke the monopoly on the only correct interpretation of the text, and over time led to postmodernism.

However, structural connections can be found not only in the process of analyzing narrative sources, but also in the study of social systems. Let us demonstrate the rich possibilities of using the structural method on the example of the study of ancient societies. In chapter 25 of The Early State, H. J. M. Klassen compared 21 early states across almost 100 different indicators (Claessen and Skalnik 1978: 533–596). Studying, in particular, the structure of the administrative apparatus, he noted the following stable correlations. At the level of almost 99% coincidence, the early states are characterized by a three-tiered administrative system (central government, regional and local authorities).

The so-called general functionaries (performing several different functions at the same time) are just as often found mainly at the regional level and somewhat less often at the national and local levels. According to the collected data, most often they were engaged in the collection of taxes or tribute, somewhat less often they performed judicial or military duties. Both inheritance and the appointment of "general" functionaries were rare. In most cases (68%) there was a mixed method of acquisition. Regarding the relationship between income and position, the degree of independence of administrators from the highest authorities and the desire of the latter to control the function of the theory and methodology of the history of the Ners, there was no completeness of empirical information, although the available data mainly testified to a stable positive relationship.

Klassen believes that it is quite justified to conclude that there is a tendency to maximize the power of functionaries at the regional level. At the same time, it fixes the strongest control of the center for this particular level of management. No less interesting conclusions were obtained by Klassen regarding the so-called "special" functionaries (in the terminology of M. Weber, more suitable for the definition of professional bureaucrats).

Like any scientific method, the structural approach has its drawbacks. The vulnerability of structuralism is considered to be its static nature, inapplicability to the study of diachronic historical changes. Neo-Marxist anthropology also points out that structuralism reduces the role of the historical subject to the deterministic elements and functions of the structure (Anderson 1991). Nevertheless, this method is important, say, for the study of political systems and power structures.

Another example of the use of the structural method can be gleaned from the work of B. N. Mironov, already mentioned above, “The Social History of Russia” (1999). The author wonders how much and how hard the Russian peasantry had to work. There are two opposing views on this.

According to the first, the peasantry was distinguished by considerable industriousness, according to the second, the Orthodox people worked quite moderately, exactly as much as was necessary. The author takes the level of labor costs as a conditional criterion of work ethics. Since this is a relative criterion, Mironov uses three different ways to calculate this variable.

As the first indicator, he takes the number of holidays and days off in a year. Next, he uses data on the timing of a number of labor processes and, finally, he tries to determine the total time spent on economic activities.

The total number of holidays and days off exceeded 100 days.

Zemstvo statistics on labor costs indicate that there was a huge potential for properly organized labor.

Finally, a calculation of the time spent on agricultural work showed that there was an excess of male labor in the village.

Chapter 19

the intensity and organization of labor of Russian peasants was lower than that of the rural population Western Europe. During periods of suffering, Russian peasants could work just as intensively (but were inferior in labor organization), but during the rest of the time, the intensity and productivity of their labor were lower (Mironov 1999, v. 2:

305-309). By the way, these same features of the work ethic can be traced later, for example, in Soviet times (the rush nature of work - “the end of the quarter”, “the end of the year”).

system method. For the first time, the basic principles of a systematic approach (method) were formulated in 1949 by the biologist L. von Bertalanffy (1969a; 1969b). A great contribution to its development was made by the mathematician N. Wiener and the psychiatrist W. Ashby. In the domestic literature, I. V. Blauberg, V. N. Sadovsky, G. P. Shchedrovitsky, E. G. Yudin and other researchers were engaged in the development of the system method (Blauberg et al. 1970; Blauberg, Yudin 1973; Shchedrovitsky 1981 and others. ).

The system method proceeds from the understanding of the system as a set of interrelated elements. The method involves considering several main tasks: 1) isolating the elements that make up the system; 2) analysis of the nature of relationships between elements (horizontal, hierarchical); 3) study of the interaction of the system with the external environment.

The study of the structure of a system - the totality of its constituent elements and the relationships between them - is actually an analysis of the internal structure. Therefore, the system method is closely related to the structural method. Some researchers even combine them, referring to a single group of system-structural methods.

An important place in the system method is occupied by the principle of isomorphism. Its essence lies in the fact that if the elements of different systems are similar to each other, then between these systems similarity can be found in their properties.

Since most systems are open (that is, they exchange energy with the external environment), the system must strive for self-preservation by maintaining its integrity and supplying the energy necessary for life. This aspect can be illustrated by the example of the so-called "energy theory of power" by the anthropologist R. Adams.

From Adams' point of view, any stable human community is an open system that exchanges energy with the external environment and transforms this energy. Any system tends to reduce the internal entropy. It is better for those systems that optimize the mechanisms for storing and using energy flows. The concentration of power in the hands of a few contributes to a better “energetic adaptation” of the community to the external environment. Since the advent of chiefdoms, control over energy has assumed a hierarchically centralized character, separated from the masses. The centralized organization of redistribution is the energy basis of stratification in the chiefdom and then in the state. Further, as the means of controlling energy flows improve, so do the scope and means of power (Adams 1975).

It cannot be said that before von Bertalanffy, no one applied a systematic approach in practice. With a careful study of many prominent scientists, one can find certain components of the system method. In particular, they were used, for example, by K. Marx in his studies of the economy of a capitalist society (Kuzmin 1980). To a large extent, the principles of a systematic approach were anticipated at the beginning of the 20th century. A. A. Bogdanov (1989) in his work on tectology - “general organizational science”, as well as in the functional method of the British anthropologist and ethnologist B. Malinovsky in the 1920s. Somewhat later, the system method was used by M. Blok in his book "Feudal Society" (2003). In this fundamental work, Blok analyzes medieval Western European society as an integral social organism. It not only shows the key components social structure(kings, chivalry, townspeople, peasants, etc.), but also reveals the relationship between these social groups, the place of Europe in a wider geopolitical context. In fact, the medieval world appears in his work as a living, developing organism.

Similar works:

Postmodernism problems, Volume IV, Broi 3, 2014 Postmodernism problems, Volume 4, Number 3, 2014 digital environment. Carried out within the framework of the national project “European Approach for Public Competences and Participation in the Digital Environment” led by Dobrina Peycheva (SWU “N. Rilski”) on the line of Naredba...”

«Issue 2 SPIRITUAL-MORAL AND HEROIC-PATRIOTE EDUCATION IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS OF PATRIOTIC ASSOCIATIONS Not for glory, for the benefit of the Fatherland! Issue 2 SPIRITUAL-MORAL AND HEROIC-PATRIOTE EDUCATION IN THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS OF PATRIOTIC ASSOCIATIONS state support allocated as a grant in accordance with the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation dated March 29, 2013 No. 115-rp and on the basis of a competition held ... "

“Seminar “Anthropology of the city and urban folklore” 2010/2011 academic year February 16, 2011 Mikhail Lurie. Street song dealers and an unpublished collection of urban folklore (Leningrad, early 1930s) A.M. Astakhova, known to folklorists as a collector, publisher and researcher of Russian epic folklore, in 1932 prepared the collection "Songs of Street Singers" for publication. The materials of this book provide a unique material for the study of urban folklore and ethnography of the city and ... "

“UDK 373.167.1 (075.3) LBC 63.3 (O) 7 V Symbols: - questions and tasks - questions and tasks of increased difficulty - pay attention - remember - interdisciplinary connections - historical documents Declaration - a concept highlighted in ordinary italics is given in terminological dictionary T. S. Sadykov and others. The World History: Textbook for 11 cells. social.-humanitarian. In the direction of general education. School / T. S. Sadykov, R. R. Kairbekova, S. V. Timchenko. - 2nd ed., revised, additional - Almaty: Mektep, 2011. - 296 ... "

“CONGRATULATIONS! DEAR COMRADES! Please accept my sincere congratulations on the occasion of the 35th anniversary of the establishment of the school and our faculty. So history decreed, and, as you know, it is not customary to rewrite it, that the Minsk Higher Military-Political Combined Arms School (MVVPOU), on the basis of which the combined arms faculty was formed, was created during the period of active growth of the national liberation movement of the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America . In order to improve the situation in these countries, it was ... "

“Igor Vasilyevich Pykhalov Why were they imprisoned under Stalin. How they lie about “Stalin's repressions” Series “Dangerous History” Text provided by the publishing house http://www.litres.ru/pages/biblio_book/?art=12486849 Igor Pykhalov. For what they planted under Stalin. How they lie about " Stalinist repressions»: Yauza-press; Moscow; 2015 ISBN 978-5-9955-0809-0 Abstract 40 million dead. No, 80! No, 100! No, 150 million! Following the precept of Goebbels: "the more monstrously you lie, the sooner you will be believed", "liberals" overestimate the real ... "

"YU. P. Averkieva AT THE ORIGINS OF MODERN ETHNOGRAPHY (ON THE CENTENNIARY OF THE "ANCIENT SOCIETY" L. G. MORGAN'S COMING INTO THE LIGHT) L. G. Morgan's classic work "Ancient Society" 1 (1877), which, according to F. Engels, made a revolution in the science of primitiveness, was the result of his many years of research. As F. Engels rightly noted, Morgan did not come to his conclusions immediately: “For about forty years he worked on his material until he completely mastered it” 2. Indeed, “Ancient Society” was ... "

William Frederick Engdahl Gods of Money. Wall Street and the Death of the American Century William F. Engdahl GODS OF MONEY. Wall Street and the Death of the American Century Foreword to the Russian Edition In March 2011, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev announced the formation of an international working group to advise the Russian government on how to turn Moscow into a global financial center. In his statement, the President said that this was an attempt to reduce Russia's dependence on natural resources via..."

«Moscow International Historical Model UN RGGU 201 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea CASE OF THE TANKER "SAIG" (1997) Report of the expert Moscow Contents Contents Introduction Chapter 1. General Provisions 1.2. About the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea 1.2. On the sources of international maritime law 1.3. About maritime spaces in international maritime law Chapter 2. General characteristics of the case of the tanker "Saiga" 2.1. Background of the case 2.2. Applicant's position 2.3. Respondent's position 2.4...."

“LESSONS ON THE RULES OF THE ROAD. In grades 1-9 (Manual for teachers.) Compiled by: Komyshev V.N., Lyukhin V.A., Zharkova T.A., Gilmutdinova M.M. Lessons by the rules traffic in grades 1-9. - A guide for teachers.g. Ufa The manual provides recommendations for conducting lessons on the Rules of the road course "Fundamentals of safe life". Particular attention is paid to the formation of the skills of the safest behavior of children in various traffic situations, the history of development ... "

"Policy. Political studies. 2014. No. 4. C. 181-190. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2014.04.15 STATE ADMINISTRATION AND POLITICAL NETWORKS S.I. Petrov PETROV Sergei Ivanovich, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Political Administration, Faculty of Political Science, St. Petersburg State University. To contact the author: [email protected] The article was received by the editors: 11/15/2013. Accepted for publication: April 23, 2014 Annotation. The article presents an analytical review of three books published in 2013 and devoted to the issues...»

"Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education" Saratov State Agrarian University named after N.I. Vavilov" ABSTRACT on the history and philosophy of science (biological science) on the topic: "Microclonal propagation of plants as modern method increasing the efficiency of plant seed production” Completed by: post-graduate student Beglov Sergey Mikhailovich Reviewer: Ph.D. s.-x. Sciences Tkachenko O.V. Scientific adviser: Ph.D. s.-x. Sciences Tkachenko O.V. Saratov...»

« ETHNOGRAPHY 198 THE JOURNAL IS FOUNDED IN 1926 IS PUBLICATED 6 TIMES A YEAR CONTENTS N B. Tera kopyan (Moscow). The work of F. Engels “The Origin of the Family,. private property and the state” and some questions of the theory of the historical process by N. P. JI obacheva (Moscow). From the history of the Karakalpak women's costume (To the problems...»

"2. REQUIREMENTS FOR MASTERING THE DISCIPLINE. In the process of studying the discipline, students must: Master the competencies: acquire the ability to analyze socially significant problems and processes occurring in society, and predict their possible development in the future (OK-4). Master the following professional competencies: In analytical, research activities: to acquire the ability to analyze and interpret the data of domestic and foreign statistics on ... "

“Interview with Ildus Fayzrakhmanovich YARULIN “NEW TEXTS, NEW PEOPLE PUSHED TO RETHINK” Yarulin I.F. - Graduated from the Faculty of History and Philology of Kazan State University (1981), Doctor of Political Sciences (1998). professor (2000); Pacific State University, Dean of the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Professor of the Department of Sociology, Political Science and Regional Studies. Main research areas: informal institutions and practices; institutionalization of civil ... "

«RUSSIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCES SCIENTIFIC COUNCIL ON THE PROBLEMS OF LITHOLOGY AND SEDIMENTARY MINERALS AT ONZ RAS (NS LOPI ONZ RAS) RUSSIAN STATE UNIVERSITY OF OIL AND GAS NAMED AFTER I.M. GUBKINA RUSSIAN FOUNDATION FOR BASIC RESEARCH EVOLUTION OF SEDIMENTARY PROCESSES IN THE HISTORY OF THE EARTH Proceedings of the VIII All-Russian Lithological Meeting (Moscow, October 27-30, 2015) GUBKINA 2015 UDC 552.5 E 15 E 15 Evolution of sedimentary processes in the history of the Earth: materials...»

"Annotation The best-selling book by the talented American journalist and TV presenter George Crile "Charlie Wilson's War" is a hitherto unknown story of the last battle cold war. The author tells about the cases of a quarter of a century ago, which largely spurred the current offensive of Islamic extremists around the world. It all began with the fact that the eccentric congressman Charlie Wilson from east Texas, for his love affairs and turbulent life ... "

“Alexander Andreevich Mityagin Alexander Alekseevich Mityagin History is the mentor of life I was born in the village of Cheboks, Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, lived in Kazan as a child and got into the banking system purely by accident - no one in the family had anything to do with it. In 1971, after graduating from the Kazan Financial and Economic Institute, I was assigned to the Krasnodar Territory, where I stayed to work. My labor activity began in the regional center - the village of Krasnoarmeyskaya (since 1994 - ... "

“Annotation This is the perfect training book! The quintessence of all intellectual trainings for the development of the mind and memory. The authors have collected all the best gaming techniques for pumping the brain. The book also contains over 333 educational, witty and practical problems that you can solve on your own. Nurali Latypov, Anatoly Wasserman, Dmitry Gavrilov, Sergey Yolkin Dreaming is not harmful, but playing is useful About IQ and educational games...»

« HISTORY RUSSIAN SOCIETY OF INTELLECTUAL HISTORY DIALOGUE WITH TIME DIALOGUE WITH TIME INTELLECTUAL HISTORY REVIEW 2015 Issue 51 EDITORIAL COUNCIL Carlos Antonio AGUIRRE ROJAS Valery V. PETROFF La Universidad Nacional Institute of Philosophy RAS Autnoma de Mexco Jefim V. BIB Institute of World...»

2016 www.site - "Free electronic library - Books, editions, publications"

The materials of this site are posted for review, all rights belong to their authors.
If you do not agree that your material is posted on this site, please write to us, we will remove it within 1-2 business days.

I stage. Selecting an object and setting a research problem.

Each historical study has its own object: an event, human activity, processes. It is beyond the power of an individual historian and even many to cover the entire historical reality. Therefore, it is necessary to define a research task aimed at solving a scientific problem. The problem highlights the unknown in the object of knowledge in the form of questions that the researcher must answer. The research task determines not only the range of phenomena, but the aspects and goals of the study. In the course of the historian's work, all these components of the research task can be refined.

The relevance of the choice of a particular problem is dictated by the logic of science itself. It is also important how much it is in demand by modern society.

Two things should be kept in mind. First, relevance is not necessarily close to us periods of history. Antiquity is no less relevant than modern times. Secondly, if the topic you have taken on has not been studied before you, this in itself does not mean relevance: maybe it does not need to be studied yet. It is necessary to prove that your topic will help solve serious scientific problems, shed additional light on the topics of interest to us.

The most important point is to take into account the results achieved by historical science by the time the scientific work began. This is a historiographical review in a book or dissertation, which should substantiate the research task, reveal the main directions and stages of the study of a scientific problem, the methodology of scientific areas, the source base of their works and scientific significance. This analysis will identify unresolved problems, those aspects of the study that have not received proper coverage or need to be corrected.

This analysis will allow you to determine the purpose and objectives of your work, and determine its place in the general flow of research. Historiographic rationale - milestone any research. In many ways, it predetermines the success of the historian's work. It can be used to judge the degree of erudition and the depth of the formulation of problems. We must strive for an objective assessment of the work of historians who wrote before you. There should be no nihilism towards predecessors, even if you consider their views obsolete. It is necessary to look at what new these historians have given in comparison with their predecessors, and not to find out what they do not have, based on modern positions, but to observe the principle of historicism. But at the same time, it is necessary to strive for a non-standard formulation of problems, to look for new ways to solve it, taking into account the latest achievements historical and related sciences, to attract new sources, to go "in breadth and depth" of the problem.

Stage II - the identification of the source-information basis and the choice of research methods.

Any historical problem can be solved only if there are sources containing the necessary information about the object of knowledge. The historian must use already known sources that other researchers used before him: having mastered new methods, he can extract new information in accordance with the objectives of the study, the chosen aspect of the study. In addition, the historian usually introduces new sources into scientific circulation and thereby enriches science. Of course, you need to know what sources of information existed during the period under study and you need to understand the system of existing archives and libraries in order to find sources.

It is necessary to involve all the knowledge in the field of source studies, which studies the problems of searching, selecting, establishing the authenticity, and reliability of information from sources. You need to use the vast experience accumulated by historians and study the literature on the source study of the problem that interests you.

Sources need to be collected as much as necessary and sufficient to complete the task, to ensure the qualitative and quantitative representativeness of specific data. What is important is not the formal number of sources, but their information richness. Do not clutter up the study with insignificant facts. Excess information can, of course, be used in further research, but at the moment it can complicate the achievement of the goal.

At the same time, there should be enough sources to solve the problems posed. According to I. Kovalchenko, the qualitative representativeness of the included information is determined by the extent to which they reveal the essential properties and relationships of the object. The historian uses previously acquired knowledge about the object. If there is not enough information from the sources, it is necessary to correct the research problem. As for quantitative representativeness, it refers to mass sources. If there is not enough data, the study should be postponed.

Taking into account the assertions of modern postmodernists that sources do not give an idea of ​​historical reality, it should be emphasized that without sources there can be no serious scientific research, it is necessary to constantly improve the method of source analysis, overcome the difficulties of extracting information from sources pointed out by postmodernists.

At this stage of the study, it is necessary to decide on the system of methods that should be used. We have already noted that non-source knowledge, the historian's methodological arsenal, are of decisive importance both in the selection and interpretation of sources and in the choice of methods.

On the basis of general philosophical, general scientific and general historical methods, the characteristics of which were given above, the historian determines specific problem methods of research. There are a lot of them, and they are determined by the specifics of the object of study. It is at this level that an interdisciplinary approach is applied, the methods of sociology, psychology, etc. are used. But the main ones are general historical methods - genetic, comparative historical, etc. Mass phenomena require quantitative methods, but if quantitative indicators are not enough, one should limit oneself to descriptive methods.

Of course, this is one of the most crucial and difficult moments of the research: you need to choose the most effective methods. Only the erudition and experience of a historian will help here. As a rule, young researchers experience the greatest difficulties here and the help of a supervisor or consultant is invaluable.

The third stage - Reconstruction and the empirical level of knowledge of historical reality.

After the completion of the preliminary stage, which was discussed above, the period of the actual study of the phenomena and processes of historical reality begins. I. Kovalchenko identifies two levels of knowledge - empirical and theoretical. On the first stage, the phenomenon is known, on the second, the essence is revealed and theoretical knowledge is formed. The selection of these stages is very conditional, in the practice of a historian they are intertwined: at the first stage, the historian does not do without theory, and at the second - without empirical material. But the fact is that the historian faces two dangers: to fall into empiricism, collecting facts that do not lead to generalizations, or, on the contrary, to fall into sociologization, breaking away from historical facts: both of these undermine the prestige of historical science.

At the empirical level, based on the set goal, the existing scientific hypothesis, the range of phenomena, ways of identifying and systematizing scientific facts are determined. Moreover, the facts in historical research have a self-contained value, they speak "for themselves", and are not simple material for further operations. The historian sums up the available data under certain scientific categories. The facts characterizing the phenomena are established. Empirical facts are systematized, compared, etc. To study the object of knowledge, a system of facts is needed. It is necessary to provide a representative (representative) system of facts. Here the whole arsenal of means comes to the rescue: logical methods for extracting hidden information, intuition, imagination, especially much depends on erudition, accumulated knowledge. If the facts are still not enough, you need to correct the research problem or refuse to solve it. True, sometimes the incompleteness of data can be compensated in the process of abstract-logical analysis at the theoretical level as a result of categorical synthesis.

Fourth stage. Explanation and theoretical level of knowledge. There has been a long discussion about the ultimate goal of the study of history. For any science, this goal is explanation. But V. Dilthey put forward the idea that a historian cannot explain history, at best, understand it.

In the 20th century, more and more came to the conclusion that the historian should not confine himself to describing events, he should explain them. K. Hempel argued that the scientific explanation of a historical event means bringing it under some kind of law. True, this will not explain a particular event in its entirety, but only a certain aspect. W. Dray argued with Hempel, who defended the model of a rational motivational explanation of certain actions of people.

In addition, there are other types of explanation. Cause-and-effect (causal), when objective and subjective causes of events, results of human activity are revealed.

The genetic explanation reveals the essence of the processes in their temporal expression. Explains the genesis, the origin of events and processes.

Structural explanation - the essence is revealed through the analysis of the structures of social systems, structural-forming features, elements of systems and their interconnections are revealed.

Functional explanation - a kind of structural explanation, allows you to understand the functioning of the system.

First, a hypothesis (theoretical scheme) is put forward. It is verified by the facts, the concepts and theories available to the historian. If it does not stand up to criticism, it is rejected, put forward new idea, a new hypothesis is born. The completed form of explanation is historical theory.

The role of theory in historical research. Theory plays a decisive role in explaining historical events. In history, theory generalizes and explains facts, connections, and relationships on the basis of concepts, ideas, and laws. In theory, facts appear not in themselves, but in the form of concepts. The integrating principle is the idea. Building a theory requires creative effort, high level knowledge, and often the development of models.

Theory participates in the formulation of the research problem, the selection of facts, and directs the research process. It performs important methodological functions. It is hardly possible to deduce a theory from facts alone. You can deductively apply a theory to facts, but you cannot test a theory with facts alone. Logicians believe that a theory, as a complex system, can neither be fully proved nor refuted: there will always be facts for and against. Any theory explains only a certain class of phenomena and is not applicable in other cases.

There is no unified axiomatic theory of the historical process, which would be shared by all historians. Historians rarely develop their own theories, more often they borrow theories and models from sociology, anthropology, psychology, etc.

Historical theories come in different levels of generalization: fundamental and partial theories. Fundamental ones are theories of socio-economic formations, the theory of civilizations, cyclical theories of the historical process, the theory of modernization, etc.

Particular theories are, for example, the theory of the medieval city, imperialism, etc. Sociological theories of population mobility, conflict studies, and many others are used. In theory, its objectivity, completeness, adequacy, interpretability and verifiability are valued. K. Popper believes that the author of any theory should try to refute it himself (the principle of falsifiability). And only after making sure of its suitability for the analysis of facts, apply it. The result also depends on the accuracy of the choice of theory, and there may be errors: the imposition of an artificial construction on the facts, insufficient selection of facts. The discovery of new phenomena, relationships may require a change in theory.

The role of concepts and categories in explanation. Concepts are formed at the theoretical level of knowledge. Historians have their own conceptual and categorical apparatus and constantly improve it. Unlike the exact sciences, the concepts are less definite, and the set of features and scope depend on the historian. Therefore, the concepts are polysemantic, constantly evolving and being refined by each researcher. According to the semantics, G. Frege singles out the trinity in each concept: name, objective meaning (denotation), meaning, concept.

The historical concept is neither a fragment of reality nor a speculative construction, it is the result of the historian's cognitive activity and, at the same time, a means of cognition. It is woven into the fabric of historical research and can be the subject of independent logical analysis, but at the same time, logical analysis cannot be separated from the subject, content side of knowledge.

The historical concept never coincides with reality. It summarizes the essence of phenomena. It does not include all the features of the object, but only the essential ones. The discrepancy between the concept and reality is explained by the individuality of historical events, they are rarely repeated and in various forms, and almost never "in pure" form. The concept cannot contain the complexity and diversity of historical reality. The asynchrony of the historical process also explains the discrepancy between the concept and reality. The concept is poorer than a concrete historical event, it covers only the general logic of the event, it schematizes the actual event. As soon as the historian is convinced that the concept does not correspond to the level of knowledge achieved, he seeks to clarify the concept. This is the main task of the study.

The concept is necessary for the historian to understand specific events. It is difficult for historians to agree on an unambiguous definition of the concept. These definitions are always insufficient. Historical reality is richer than any concept. Concepts are polysemantic, if we rigidly define the concept, we close the way for further research and stop in the process of cognition. Let us recall that the strict definition of a nation in Russian historiography has led to the fact that no historical studies on the formation of nations in Europe, and even in Russia, have appeared at all. The concept should be open for further clarification, expansion of its content. The concept should be definite and stable, but should not be a universal master key. Finally, the concept cannot be divorced from reality, a specific era. It is impossible to violate the principle of historicism, otherwise it will become meaningless.

Historical science has a certain system of developed concepts. The conceptual apparatus is constantly evolving, old concepts are being clarified, new ones are emerging. In connection with the development of an interdisciplinary approach, the concepts of other sciences are used.

Concepts can be single and general, the concepts of specific and generic differ, and finally, concrete and abstract. The complexity of operating with concepts is due to the multifunctionality and uncertainty of terms.

The language is characterized by polyvariance of vocabulary. After all, the historian uses ordinary, natural, and not formalized, artificial language.

Along with concepts, the historian uses categories - broad, extremely generalized concepts. These are generic concepts.

There are different levels of categories. Philosophical: movement, space, time, quality, quantity, contradiction, part, whole, single, general, cause, effect, form, content and others.

Of particular note is the use of concepts and categories of related sciences, in particular, sociology, psychology, human sciences. Using the concepts of other sciences (in particular, mathematical ones) requires special knowledge and great care. But today, in the context of the integration of social and human sciences with history, this is necessary, although it requires additional knowledge from the researcher.

Incorrect handling of concepts leads to errors. I. Kovalchenko believes that the historian sums up specific data under one category or another. This is where differences in the approach of individual historians come to light. Different opinions are a manifestation of the activity of the knower. Disputes and discussions are the most important means of clarifying concepts and developing scientific research. No scientific direction can lay claim to the ultimate truth.

Scientific disputes should be conducted correctly in form and aimed at deepening knowledge, discussing new approaches, and clearly revealing the content of the concepts used. It is unacceptable to simplify, distort the views of the opponent.

The main thing is the constructive focus of discussions, and not sticking labels and humiliating opponents.

The logical structure of historical knowledge certainly deserves further development and clarifications. In the book by K. Khvostova, V. Finn "Problems of historical knowledge in the light of modern interdisciplinary research" (1997), a special chapter is devoted to this problem. The authors identify the main parts of this structure, the stages of logical constructions.

The authors emphasize the importance of a priori "prerequisite" knowledge, philosophical and ideological climate, the state of historical science. All this is passed through the personality of the historian, who rethinks history in a broad sense.

The historian should pay special attention to the logical systematization of knowledge, the formalization of his judgments, the clarification of the concepts used, and the formulation of the concept of his work. The logical structure of a historical work is hidden, disguised as natural language. But there is a logical structure, and attention must be paid to it. The authors distinguish four stages of the topic analysis. The first is to create arguments for or against the inclusion of a system of statements (a priori or based on sources). The second is the analysis of cause-and-effect relationships (the logic of "discovery"). The third is situational logic (according to K. Popper). And finally, the fourth - the creation of the concept.

The historian owns the logic of argumentation. He uses evidence, axioms, plausible reasoning, owns rhetoric, methods of persuasion.

The attempt of the authors of the book to mathematically express the logical structure of historical research deserves attention, although it is difficult for a historian who does not know mathematics to understand. Perhaps this is one of the most difficult and little studied problems of the logic of historical research, although philosophers have dealt with it. But historians do not yet have such studies, which negatively affects the training of young historians.

Historical concept. This is the most important final component of the study, the result of studying the material, logical constructions, testing theoretical hypotheses and formulating a generalization of the actual material. According to the historical concept, the work of the historian, his contribution to science is evaluated. Particular attention is paid to the logical harmony and evidence of the concept. Historians either create new concepts or refine the old ones in some way. This is the main way of development of science.

The historical concept is embedded in the text of a historical work, as a rule, it is briefly formulated in the conclusions or conclusion of the work. The historical concept, in contrast to theoretical schemes, is not abstract, but concrete. She systematizes the material and gives it an explanation. Unlike theory, the historical concept is concrete. This is the result, as noted earlier, of the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

Checking the results of the study is the final stage of the historian's work. We know about the relativity of the obtained results. But delusions are also relative. An erroneous result is useful for science - it shows the dead-end nature of the chosen methods and approaches. Meanwhile, any relative truth carries a particle of the absolute and the share of the latter increases: Objective truth is always concrete. The main way to check the results obtained is criticism. Historians, getting acquainted with a new work, immediately notice the strengths and weaknesses. A content-logical analysis is carried out. Hypothesis testing is carried out by the method of exclusion or inclusion in a larger problem. If the result contradicts the general system, it is necessary to correct the scientific problem. The main thing is to check the reliability of the arguments and conclusions drawn by the author. The criteria of scientificity, in addition to reliability, include objectivity, validity and consistency. Other historians, noticing the weaknesses of the work, will write again on the same subject, using new sources and methods. The path of knowledge is endless and always thorny.

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND YOUTH POLICY

KHANTY-MANSIYSKY AUTONOMOUS REGION - YUGRA

State educational institution

higher professional education

Khanty-Mansiysk autonomous region- Ugra

"Surgut State Pedagogical University»

MAIN METHODS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH

abstract

Completed by: Vorobieva E.V. group B-3071,IVGFS rate Checked by: Medvedev V.V.

Surgut

2017

CONTENT

INTRODUCTION

The modern historian is faced with the difficult task of developing a research methodology, which should be based on knowledge and understanding of the possibilities of the methods existing in historical science, as well as a balanced assessment of their usefulness, effectiveness, and reliability.

In Russian philosophy, three levels of scientific methods are distinguished: general, general, and particular. The division is based on the degree of regulativeness of cognitive processes.

The general methods include philosophical methods that are used at the basis of all cognitive procedures and allow us to explain all processes and phenomena in nature, society and thinking.

General methods are applied at all stages of the cognitive process (empirical and theoretical) and by all sciences. At the same time, they are focused on understanding certain aspects of the phenomenon under study.

The third group is private methods. These include the methods of a particular science - for example, a physical or biological experiment, observation, mathematical programming, descriptive and genetic methods in geology, comparative analysis in linguistics, measurement methods in chemistry, physics, etc.

Private methods are directly related to the subject of study of science and reflect its specificity. Each science develops its own system of methods, which is developed and supplemented by related disciplines along with the development of science. This is also characteristic of history, where, along with the traditionally established methods of source study and historiographic analysis based on logical operations, methods of statistics, mathematical modeling, mapping, observation, questioning, etc., began to be used.

Within the framework of a specific science, the main methods are also distinguished - basic for this science (in history it is historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological, historical-systemic, historical-dynamic) and auxiliary methods, with the help of which its individual, particular problems are solved. .

In the process of scientific research, general, general and particular methods interact and form a single whole - methodology. The general method used reveals the most general principles of human thought. General methods make it possible to accumulate and analyze the necessary material, as well as to give the obtained scientific results - knowledge and facts - a logically consistent form. Particular methods are designed to solve specific issues that reveal certain aspects of a cognizable object.

1. GENERAL SCIENTIFIC METHODS OF KNOWLEDGE

General scientific methods include observation and experiment, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, analogy and hypothesis, logical and historical, modeling, etc.

Observation and experiment are general scientific methods of cognition, especially widely used in natural science. By observation they mean perception, living contemplation, directed by a certain task without direct interference with the natural course in natural conditions. An essential condition for scientific observation is the promotion of a particular hypothesis, idea, proposal. .

An experiment is such a study of an object when the researcher actively influences it by creating artificial conditions necessary to reveal certain properties, or by changing the course of the process in a given direction.

The cognitive activity of a person, aimed at revealing the essential properties, relationships and connections of objects, first of all singles out from the totality of observed facts those that are involved in his practical activity. A person mentally, as it were, dismembers an object into its component parts, properties, parts. Studying, for example, a tree, a person singles out different parts and sides in it; trunk, roots, branches, leaves, color, shape, size, etc. Cognition of a phenomenon by decomposing it into components is called analysis. In other words, analysis as a method of thinking is a mental decomposition of an object into its constituent parts and sides, which gives a person the opportunity to separate objects or any of their sides from those random and transient connections in which they are given to him in perception. Without analysis, no cognition is possible, although analysis still does not single out the connections between the sides, the properties of phenomena. The latter are established by synthesis. Synthesis is a mental union of elements dissected by analysis .

A person mentally decomposes an object into its component parts in order to discover these parts themselves, in order to find out what the whole consists of, and then considers it as composed of these parts, but already examined separately.

Only gradually comprehending what happens to objects when performing practical actions with them, a person began to mentally analyze, synthesize a thing. Analysis and synthesis are the main methods of thinking, because the processes of connection and separation, creation and destruction form the basis of all processes in the world and practical human activity.

Induction and deduction. As a research method, induction can be defined as the process of deriving a general position from the observation of a series single facts. On the contrary, deduction is the process of analytical reasoning from the general to the particular. inductive method cognition, which requires going from facts to laws, is dictated by the very nature of the cognizable object: in it the general exists in unity with the individual, the particular. Therefore, in order to comprehend the general pattern, it is necessary to investigate single things, processes.

Induction is only a moment of movement of thought. It is closely related to deduction: any single object can be comprehended only by being included in the system of concepts already existing in your mind. .

The objective basis of the historical and logical methods of cognition is the real history of the development of a cognizable object in all its concrete diversity and the main, leading trend, the pattern of this development. Thus, the history of the development of mankind is the dynamics of the life of all the peoples of our planet. Each of them has its own unique history, its own characteristics, expressed in everyday life, customs, psychology, language, culture, etc. World history is an infinitely variegated picture of the life of mankind in various eras and countries. Here is necessary, and accidental, and essential, I am secondary, and unique, and similar, and singular, and general. . But despite this endless variety life paths different peoples, their history has something in common. All peoples, as a rule, went through the same socio-economic formations. The commonality of human life is manifested in all areas: economic, social, and spiritual. This commonality expresses the objective logic of history. The historical method involves the study of a specific development process, and the logical method - the study of the general laws of the movement of the object of knowledge. The logical method is nothing else than the same historical method, only freed from its historical form and from the contingencies that violate it.

The essence of the modeling method is to reproduce the properties of an object on its specially arranged analogue - a model. A model is a conditional image of an object. Although any modeling coarsens and simplifies the object of knowledge, it serves as an important auxiliary means of research. It makes it possible to study the processes characteristic of the original, in the absence of the original itself, which is often necessary due to the inconvenience or impossibility of studying the object itself. .

General scientific methods of cognition do not replace concrete scientific methods of research; on the contrary, they are refracted in the latter and are in dialectical unity with them. Together with them, they perform a common task - the reflection of the objective world in the human mind. General scientific methods significantly deepen knowledge and make it possible to reveal more general properties and regularities of reality.

2. SPECIAL METHODS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Special-historical, or general historical, methods of research are one or another combination of general scientific methods aimed at studying the object of historical knowledge, i.e. taking into account the features of this object, expressed in the general theory of historical knowledge .

The following special-historical methods have been developed: genetic, comparative, typological, systemic, retrospective, reconstructive, actualization, periodization, synchronous, diachronic, biographical. Also applied are methods associated with auxiliary historical disciplines - archeology, genealogy, heraldry, historical geography, historical onomastics, metrology, numismatics, paleography, sphragistics, phaleristics, chronology, etc.

The main general historical methods of scientific research include: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological, and historical-systemic.

Historical-genetic method is one of the most common in historical research. Its essence lies in the consistent disclosure of the properties, functions and changes of the studied reality in the process of its historical movement, which allows you to get as close as possible to reproducing the real history of the object. This object is reflected in the most specific form. Cognition proceeds sequentially from the individual to the particular, and then to the general and universal. By its logical nature, the historical-genetic method is analytical and inductive, and by the form of expressing information about the reality under study, it is descriptive. .

The specificity of this method is not in the construction ideal images object, but in the generalization of factual historical data towards the reconstruction of a general scientific picture of the social process. Its application allows us to understand not only the sequence of events in time, but also general dynamics social process.

The limitations of this method are the lack of attention to statics, i.e. to fixing some temporal given of historical phenomena and processes, the danger of relativism may arise. In addition, he “gravitates towards descriptiveness, factualism and empiricism. Finally, the historical-genetic method, for all its antiquity and breadth of application, does not have a developed and clear logic and conceptual apparatus. Therefore, his methodology, and hence his technique, are vague and uncertain, which makes it difficult to compare and bring together the results of individual studies. .

Idiographic method was proposed by G. Rickert as the main method of history . G. Rickert reduced the essence of the idiographic method to the description of individual features, unique and exceptional features of historical facts, which are formed by a historian on the basis of their "reference to value". In his opinion, history individualizes events, highlighting them from an infinite set of so-called. "historical individual", which meant both the nation and the state, a separate historical personality .

Based on the idiographic method, it is appliedideographic method - a way to unambiguously record concepts and their relationships using signs, or a descriptive method. The idea of ​​the ideographic method goes back to Lullio and Leibniz .

Historical-genetic method close to the ideographic method, especially when used at the first stage of historical research, when information is extracted from sources, their systematization and processing. Then the researcher's attention is focused on individual historical facts and phenomena, on their description, as opposed to identifying developmental features. .

cognitive functionscomparative historical method :

Identification of signs in phenomena of a different order, their comparison, comparison;

Elucidation of the historical sequence of the genetic connection of phenomena, the establishment of their generic relationships and relationships in the process of development, the establishment of differences in phenomena;

Generalization, construction of a typology of social processes and phenomena. Thus, this method is wider and more meaningful than comparisons and analogies. The latter do not act as a special method of historical science. They can be applied in history, as well as in other areas of knowledge, and regardless of the comparative historical method.

In general, the historical-comparative method has broad cognitive capabilities. .

Firstly, it allows revealing the essence of the studied phenomena in those cases when it is not obvious, on the basis of the available facts; to identify the general and repetitive, necessary and natural, on the one hand, and qualitatively different, on the other. This fills in the gaps and completes the study.

Secondly, the historical-comparative method makes it possible to go beyond the phenomena under study and, on the basis of analogies, to come to broad historical generalizations and parallels.

Thirdly, it allows the application of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method.

The successful application of the historical-comparative method, like any other, requires compliance with a number of methodological requirements. First of all, the comparison should be based on specific facts that reflect the essential features of phenomena, and not their formal similarity.

It is possible to compare objects and phenomena both of the same type and of different types, which are at the same and at different stages of development. But in one case, the essence will be revealed on the basis of identifying similarities, in the other - differences. Compliance with these conditions of historical comparisons in essence means the consistent implementation of the principle of historicism.

Revealing the significance of features on the basis of which a historical-comparative analysis should be carried out, as well as the typology and stages of the compared phenomena most often requires special research efforts and the use of other general historical methods, primarily historical-typological and historical-systemic. In combination with these methods, the historical-comparative method is a powerful tool in historical research. But this method, of course, has a certain range of the most effective action. This is, first of all, the study of socio-historical development in a wide spatial and temporal aspect, as well as those less broad phenomena and processes, the essence of which cannot be revealed through direct analysis due to their complexity, inconsistency and incompleteness, as well as gaps in specific historical data. .

The historical-comparative method is inherent in a certain limitation, and one should also bear in mind the difficulties of its application. This method as a whole is not aimed at revealing the reality in question. Through it, first of all, the root essence of reality in all its diversity, and not its specific specificity, is known. It is difficult to apply the historical-comparative method in studying the dynamics of social processes. The formal application of the historical-comparative method is fraught with erroneous conclusions and observations .

Historical-typological method. Both the identification of the general in the spatio-singular, and the isolation of the stadial-homogeneous in the continuous-temporal require special cognitive means. Such a tool is the method of historical-typological analysis. Typologization as a method of scientific knowledge aims to divide (order) a set of objects or phenomena into qualitatively defined types (classes) on the basis of their common essential features. Typologization, being a type of classification in form, is a method of essential analysis .

Revealing the qualitative certainty of the considered set of objects and phenomena is necessary to identify the types that form this set, and knowledge of the essential-content nature of types is an indispensable condition for determining those basic features that are inherent in these types and which can be the basis for a specific typological analysis, i.e. to reveal the typological structure of the reality under study.

The principles of the typological method can only be effectively applied on the basis of a deductive approach. . It consists in the fact that the corresponding types are distinguished on the basis of a theoretical essential-content analysis of the considered set of objects. The result of the analysis should be not only the identification of qualitatively different types, but also the identification of those specific features that characterize their qualitative certainty. This creates the possibility of assigning each individual object to a particular type.

The selection of specific features for typology can be multivariate. This dictates the need to use both a combined deductive-inductive and inductive approach in typology. The essence of the deductive-inductive approach is that the types of objects are determined on the basis of an essential-content analysis of the phenomena under consideration, and those essential features that are inherent in them - by analyzing empirical data about these objects .

The inductive approach differs in that here both the selection of types and the identification of their most characteristic features are based on an analysis of empirical data. It is necessary to follow this path in cases where the manifestations of the individual in the particular and the particular in the general are diverse and unstable.

AT cognitive plan The most effective typification is one that allows not only to single out the corresponding types, but also to establish both the degree to which objects belong to these types and the measure of their similarity with other types. This requires methods of multidimensional typology.

Its application brings the greatest scientific effect in the study of homogeneous phenomena and processes, although the scope of the method is not limited to them. In the study of both homogeneous and heterogeneous types, it is equally important that the objects under study be comparable in terms of the main fact for this typification, in terms of the most characteristics underlying historical typology .

Historical-system method based on a systematic approach. The objective basis of the systematic approach and method of scientific knowledge is the unity in the socio-historical development of the individual (individual), special and general. This unity is real and concrete and appears in socio-historical systems of different levels. .

Individual events have features that are unique to them and are not repeated in other events. But these events form certain types and types of human activity and relations, and, consequently, along with the individual, they also have common features and thereby create certain aggregates with properties that go beyond the individual, i.e. certain systems.

Individual events are included in social systems and through historical situations. The historical situation is a spatio-temporal set of events that form a qualitatively defined state of activity and relations, i.e. it is the same social system.

Finally, the historical process in its time span has qualitatively different stages or stages, which include a certain set of events and situations that make up subsystems in the overall dynamic system of social development. .

The systemic nature of socio-historical development means that all events, situations and processes of this development are not only causally conditioned and have a causal relationship, but also functionally related. Functional connections, as it were, overlap cause-and-effect connections, on the one hand, and are complex in nature, on the other. On this basis, it is believed that in scientific knowledge, not a causal, but a structural-functional explanation should be of decisive importance. .

The system approach and system methods of analysis, which include structural and functional analyzes, are characterized by integrity and complexity. The system under study is not considered from the side of its certain aspects and properties, but as a holistic qualitative certainty with a comprehensive account of both its own main features and its place and role in the hierarchy of systems. However, the practical implementation of this analysis initially requires the isolation of the system under study from an organically unified hierarchy of systems. This procedure is called system decomposition. She presents a complex cognitive process, because it is often very difficult to single out a certain system from the unity of systems .

The isolation of the system should be carried out on the basis of identifying a set of objects (elements) that have a qualitative certainty, expressed not just in certain properties of these elements, but, above all, in their inherent relationships, in their characteristic system of relationships. The isolation of the system under study from the hierarchy of systems must be justified. In this case, methods of historical and typological analysis can be widely used.

From the point of view of specific content, the solution of this problem is reduced to the identification of system-forming (systemic) features inherent in the components of the selected system.

After the identification of the corresponding system, its analysis as such follows. Structural analysis is central here, i.e. identification of the nature of the relationship between the components of the system and their properties, the result of structural and system analysis will be knowledge about the system as such. This knowledge is empirical in nature, because it does not in itself reveal the essential nature of the revealed structure. The transfer of the acquired knowledge to the theoretical level requires the identification of the functions of this system in the hierarchy of systems, where it appears as a subsystem. This problem is solved by functional analysis, which reveals the interaction of the system under study with higher-level systems. .

Only a combination of structural and functional analysis makes it possible to cognize the essential-content nature of the system in all its depth. System-functional analysis makes it possible to identify which properties of the environment, i.e. systems of a higher level, including the system under study as one of the subsystems, determine the essential-content nature of this system .

The disadvantage of this method is that it is used only for synchronous analysis, which is fraught with non-disclosure of the development process. Another drawback is the danger of excessive abstraction - the formalization of the reality under study.

Retrospective method . A distinctive feature of this method is the direction from the present to the past, from the effect to the cause. In its content, the retrospective method acts, first of all, as a reconstruction technique that allows you to synthesize, correct knowledge about the general nature of the development of phenomena .

The technique of retrospective cognition consists in sequential penetration into the past in order to identify the cause of a given event. In this case, we are talking about the root cause, directly related to this event, and not about its distant historical roots. Retro-analysis shows, for example, that the root cause of domestic bureaucracy lies in the Soviet party-state structure, although they tried to find it in Nikolaev Russia, and in the Petrine reforms, and in the bureaucracy of the Muscovite kingdom. If in retrospection the path of knowledge is a movement from the present to the past, then in the construction of a historical explanation it is from the past to the present in accordance with the principle of diachrony .

A number of special-historical methods are associated with the category of historical time.These are the methods of actualization, periodization, synchronous and diachronic (or problem-chronological).

The first step in the work of a historian is the compilation of a chronology. The second step is periodization. The historian cuts history into periods, replaces the elusive continuity of time with some signifying structure. Relations of discontinuity and continuity are revealed: continuity takes place within periods, discontinuity - between periods.

Periodization means, therefore, to identify discontinuities, discontinuities, to indicate what exactly is changing, to date these changes and give them a preliminary definition. Periodization deals with the identification of continuity and its violations. It opens the way for interpretation. She makes history if not quite understandable, then at least already conceivable.

The historian does not reconstruct time in its entirety for each new study: he takes the time that other historians have already worked on, the periodization of which is available. Since the question being asked acquires legitimacy only as a result of its inclusion in the field of research, the historian cannot abstract from previous periodizations: after all, they constitute the language of the profession.

The diachronic method is typical for structural-diachronic research, which is a special type of research activity, when the task of identifying the features of the construction of various processes in time is solved. Its specificity is revealed through comparison with the synchronistic approach. The terms "diachrony" (simultaneity) and "synchrony" (simultaneity), introduced into linguistics by the Swiss linguist F. de Saussure, characterize the sequence of development of historical phenomena in a certain area of ​​reality (diachrony) and the state of these phenomena at a certain point in time (synchrony) .

Diachronic (multi-temporal) analysis is aimed at studying the essential-temporal changes in historical reality. With its help, you can answer questions about when this or that state can occur during the process under study, how long it will last, how long this or that historical event, phenomenon, process will take. .

CONCLUSION

Methods of scientific knowledge is a set of techniques, norms, rules and procedures that regulate scientific research and provide a solution to the research problem. The scientific method is a way of finding answers to scientifically posed questions and at the same time a way of posing such questions formulated in the form of scientific problems. Thus, the scientific method is a way of obtaining new information to solve scientific problems.

History as a subject and a science is based on historical methodology. If in many other scientific disciplines there are two main methods of cognition, namely observation and experiment, then only the first method is available for history. Even despite the fact that every true scientist tries to minimize the impact on the object of observation, he still interprets what he sees in his own way. Depending on the methodological approaches used by scientists, the world receives various interpretations the same event, various teachings, schools, and so on.

The use of scientific methods of cognition distinguishes historical science in such areas as historical memory, historical consciousness and historical knowledge, provided, of course, that the use of these methods is correct.

LIST OF SOURCES USED

Barg M.A. Categories and methods of historical science. - M., 1984

Bocharov A.V. Basic Methods of Historical Research: Textbook. - Tomsk: Tomsk State University, 2006. 190 p.

Grushin B.A. Essays on the logic of historical research.-M., 1961

Ivanov V.V. Methodology of historical science. - M., 1985

Bocharov A.V. Basic Methods of Historical Research: Textbook. - Tomsk: Tomsk State University, 2006. 190 p.

The subject of history

History deals with human activity, i.e. with actions performed by individuals and groups of individuals. It describes the circumstances in which people live and the way they react to those circumstances. Its object is value judgments and the ends to which people are guided by these judgments, the means to which people resort to achieve the goals pursued, and the results of their actions. History studies the conscious reaction of a person to the state of his environment, both the natural environment and the social environment, determined by the actions of previous generations and his contemporaries.

Each individual is born in a certain social and natural environment. The individual is not merely a man in general, whom history can consider in the abstract. At every moment of his life, the individual is the product of all the experience accumulated by his ancestors, plus the experience that he himself has accumulated. The real man lives as a member of his family, his race, his people and his age; as a citizen of their country; as a member of a particular social group; as a representative of a certain profession. He is inspired by certain religious, philosophical, metaphysical and political ideas, which he sometimes expands or modifies with his own thinking.

His actions are guided by the ideologies he has adopted in his environment. However, these ideologies are not immutable. They are products of the human mind and change when new thoughts are added to an old assortment of ideas or replace discarded ideas. In searching for the source of the origin of new ideas, history cannot go further than establishing that they were produced by the thinking of some man. The end data of history, beyond which no historical research can go, are human ideas and actions. The historian can trace the origin of an idea to another, previously developed idea. He can describe the external conditions to which these actions were a reaction. But he will never be able to say more about new ideas and new ways of behaving than that they arose at a certain point in space and time in the human brain and were perceived by other people.

Attempts have been made to explain the birth of ideas from "natural" factors. Ideas were described as a necessary product of the geographic environment, the physical structure of the human environment. This doctrine clearly contradicts the facts available. Many ideas come into being as a response to stimuli. physical environment human habitat. But the content of these ideas is not determined by the external environment. Different individuals and groups of individuals react differently to the same external environment.

A variety of ideas and actions tried to explain biological factors. Man as a biological species is divided into racial groups that have clearly distinguishable inherited biological characteristics. Historical experience does not prevent us from suggesting that members of a particular racial group are better equipped to understand sound ideas than members of other races. However, it is necessary to explain why people of the same race have different ideas? Why are brothers different from each other?

It is all the more doubtful whether cultural backwardness is an indication of the irreversible inferiority of a racial group. The evolutionary process that turned the animal-like ancestors of man into modern people, lasted many hundreds of thousands of years. Compared with this period, the fact that some races have not yet reached the cultural level that other races passed several thousand years ago does not seem to be of great importance. The physical and mental development of some individuals proceeds more slowly than the average, but subsequently they far exceed the majority of normal developing people. There is nothing impossible in the fact that the same phenomenon is characteristic of entire races.

Outside of human ideas and the goals to which people are driven by these ideas, nothing exists for history. If the historian refers to the meaning of any fact, he always refers either to the interpretation that acting people give to the situation in which they have to live and act, as well as to the results of the actions taken, or to the interpretation that other people give to the results of these actions. The ultimate causes referred to in history are always the ends sought by individuals and groups of individuals. History does not recognize in the course of events any other meaning and meaning than that attributed to them by acting people who judge from the point of view of their own human deeds.

Methods of historical research

History as a subject and a science is based on historical methodology. If in many other scientific disciplines there are two main methods of cognition, namely observation and experiment, then only the first method is available for history. Even despite the fact that every true scientist tries to minimize the impact on the object of observation, he still interprets what he sees in his own way. Depending on the methodological approaches used by scientists, the world receives different interpretations of the same event, various teachings, schools, and so on.

Allocate following methods historical research:

Brain teaser,

general scientific,

special,

Interdisciplinary.

· Boolean Methods historical research

In practice, historians have to use special research methods based on logical and general scientific methods. Logical (philosophical) methods include analysis and synthesis, analogy and comparison, modeling and generalization, and others.

Synthesis implies the reunion of an event or object from smaller components, that is, the movement from simple to complex is used here. The complete opposite of synthesis is analysis, in which one has to move from the complex to the simple.

No less important are such research methods in history as induction and deduction. The latter makes it possible to develop a theory based on the systematization of empirical knowledge about the object under study, deriving numerous consequences. Induction, on the other hand, translates everything from the particular to the general, often probabilistic, position.

Scientists also use analgia and comparison. The first makes it possible to see a certain similarity between different objects that have a large number of relationships, properties, and other things, and comparison is a judgment about the signs of difference and similarity between objects. Comparison is extremely important for qualitative and quantitative characteristics, classification, evaluation and other things.

The methods of historical research are especially distinguished by modeling, which only allows one to assume a connection between objects in order to reveal their location in the system, and generalization, a method that highlights common features that allow one to make an even more abstract version of an event or some other process.

General scientific methods of historical research

In this case, the above methods are supplemented by empirical methods of knowledge, that is, experiment, observation and measurement, as well as theoretical methods of research, such as mathematical methods, transitions from the abstract to the concrete and vice versa, and others.

Special methods of historical research

One of the most important in this area is the comparative historical method, which not only highlights the underlying problems of phenomena, but also points out similarities and features in historical processes, points out the trends of certain events.

At one time, the theory of K. Marx and his historical-dialectical method, in contrast to which the civilizational method acted, became especially widespread.

Interdisciplinary research methods in history

Like any other science, history is interconnected with other disciplines that help to understand the unknown in order to explain certain historical events. For example, using the techniques of psychoanalysis, historians have been able to interpret the behavior of historical figures. Very important is the interaction between geography and history, which resulted in the cartographic method of research. Linguistics has made it possible to learn a lot about early history based on the synthesis of the approaches of history and linguistics. There are also very close links between history and sociology, mathematics, and so on.

· The cartographic method of research is a separate section of cartography, which is of great historical and economic importance. With its help, you can not only determine the place of residence of individual tribes, indicate the movement of tribes, etc., but also find out the location of minerals and other important objects.

General scientific research methods

The general sciences are generic methods research, which in one way or another is used by every science and every scientific theory. The most common of these are the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, and in the social sciences the method of the unity of the logical and the historical.

Climbing from the abstract to the concrete

The most important method of studying reality, characteristic of any science, scientific thinking in general, is the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete. To correctly understand its essence, one must have a correct understanding of the categories of the concrete and the abstract.

The concrete from a scientific point of view is, firstly, a real object, reality in all the richness of its content. Secondly, it is a reflection of this reality, concrete scientific knowledge about it, which is the result of sensory perception and thinking. In the second meaning, the concrete exists in the form of a system of theoretical concepts and categories. “The concrete is concrete because it is the synthesis of many determinations, and therefore the unity of the manifold. In thinking, therefore, it appears as a process of synthesis, as a result, and not as a starting point, although it is a real starting point and, consequently, also a starting point. contemplation and representation."

The abstract, or abstraction, is the result of abstraction - the process of thinking, the essence of which lies in the mental abstraction from a number of non-essential properties of a real object and, thereby, in highlighting its basic properties that are common with other objects. Abstractions are "abbreviations in which we embrace, according to their general properties, a multitude of different sensible things"2. As examples of abstractions, we can name such concepts as "person" or "house". In the first case, thinking is abstracted from such features of a person as race, nationality, gender, age, in the second - from the diversity of types of houses. The same abstraction is the category "economy", since it lacks features that characterize the set of economic relations inherent in any real economy.

Based on such a scientific understanding of the concrete and the abstract, it can be argued that the objects and phenomena of reality are always concrete, and their everyday or scientific definitions are always abstract. This is explained by the fact that the organs of human sensory perception are capable of capturing only certain aspects, properties and relationships of real objects. A person can imagine an object in all its concreteness, with all its elements, their internal and external connections only through thinking, moving step by step from superficial perception to understanding its deep, essential connections. That is why this process of thinking is called the ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

In general, the process of scientific knowledge of reality is carried out in two interrelated and interdependent ways: by the movement of thought from specific objects of knowledge, given in their sensory perception, to abstractions (this path is also called the movement from the concrete to the abstract, from the particular to the general, or from facts to generalizations) and by ascending from the abstract to the concrete, the essence of which is to get an idea of ​​reality through understanding the abstractions obtained.

Analysis and synthesis

Both in nature and in society, the subject under study has a set of features, properties, and traits. To understand correctly given subject, it is necessary to divide it into the simplest constituent elements, to subject each of the elements to a detailed study, to reveal the role and significance of each element within a single whole. The decomposition of an object into separate elements and the study of each of these elements as a necessary part of the whole is called analysis.

However, the research process is not limited to analysis. After the nature of each of the constituent elements is known, their role and significance within the given whole is clarified, it is necessary to combine these elements again, in accordance with their role and purpose, into a single whole. The combination of dissected and analyzed elements into a single internally connected whole is called synthesis.

A physicist or chemist can experimentally isolate the studied side of the phenomenon from all the others, study it in its purest form. In economic theory, this method is impossible. When studying the subject of economic theory, analysis and synthesis can only be carried out in the head of the researcher, with the help of a mental breakdown of the subject being studied. Here, the use of scientific abstractions becomes of paramount importance as a tool for cognizing reality.

· Induction and deduction

Induction (literally translated from Latin - guidance) is a method of logical reasoning, using which, from knowledge of individual specific facts or from less general, individual knowledge, one passes to knowledge of a more general nature. This method is an ancient (originating in ancient Indian, ancient Chinese and ancient Greek logic) method of logical reasoning, the process of knowing reality by moving from the concrete to the abstract.

Induction usually relies directly on observation and experiment. The source material for it is the facts that are obtained in the process of empirical study of reality. The result of inductive thinking are generalizations, scientific hypotheses, guesses about previously unknown patterns and laws.

The ultimate basis and criterion for the correctness of generalizing inductive conclusions is practice. Knowledge acquired purely inductively, usually turn out to be incomplete and, as F. Engels put it, "problematic". For this reason, the conclusions of inductive reasoning in the process of cognition are closely intertwined with deduction.

Deduction (inference) - the conclusion of speculative consequences from premises in accordance with the laws of logic (a favorite method famous detective Sherlock Holmes). Deduction issues began to be intensively developed from the end of the 19th century. in connection with the rapid development of mathematical logic.

The rigor of logical and mathematical constructions can create the illusion of impeccable conclusions based on the deductive method. In this regard, it must be remembered that the very laws of logic and mathematics are only the results of observing certain laws of the world around us, mainly in the field of natural science. Therefore, the application of the deductive method requires knowledge of the internal laws of connection of the studied phenomena, without which no logic can lead to correct conclusions. The deductive method is a tool for cognition of reality, and not its creation. Figuratively speaking, deductive method is a cookbook that allows you to bake a good pie from raw products, but does not make it possible to make such a pie from imitated or conditional raw materials. Therefore, when a theoretician bases his theory on a conditional assumption, he cannot expect to receive conclusions that reflect reality.

The unity of the logical and historical

In the social sciences, real history is the basis of logical scientific constructions, in connection with which here purely speculative theoretical models are admissible only to a very limited extent. A good knowledge of the facts of history and their verification of the results of logical conclusions is an important methodological principle. economics, which is called the principle of unity of historical and logical. Where does the history of the social system in question begin? theoretical analysis. At the same time, the theoretical reflection of the historical process is not its exact copy. The totality of processes and relations that make up a particular social system is immeasurably greater than its individual aspects that are the subject of one or another social science. Therefore, the researcher must abstract from a number of relations that are unimportant from the point of view of his subject. History describes and records facts and events as they actually took place in a particular country, in a particular period of time. Economic theory selects and considers from the facts of history only those that point to typical relationships and regular, necessary connections. With a logical reflection, history is, as it were, cleansed of everything accidental, insignificant and reproduced only in its main, decisive, objectively necessary links. History is reflected in logic as a progressive, natural movement of society from simple to complex, from lower to higher. All historically random zigzags in the process of this movement are not reproduced during logical research.

· Other research methods

In the process of scientific knowledge, numerous and varied methods are used, including private techniques, usually referred to as methodology. Of these, first of all, it is necessary to name the method of comparison - cognitive logical operation, by means of which, on the basis of some fixed attribute (the basis of comparison), the identity (equality) or difference of the compared objects is established.

Common methods for studying the current reality are empirical methods, which include observation and experiment. In modern scientific knowledge, the methods of analogy, modeling, formalization, probability theory, and statistical methods are widely used.

Each science, having its own special subject of study and its own theoretical principles, applies special methods arising from this or that understanding of the essence of its object. Thus, the methods used in the study of social phenomena are determined by the specifics of the social form of the movement of matter, its laws, its essence. Similarly, biological methods must conform to the essence biological forms the motion of matter. Statistical regularities that objectively exist in the mass of random phenomena and which are characterized by specific relationships between the random and the necessary, the individual and the general, the whole and its parts, constitute the objective basis statistical methods knowledge.

HISTORICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY - 1) theoretical positions historical science, which act as a means of discovering new historical facts or are used as a tool for knowing the past [V. V. Kosolapov]; 2) the theoretical basis of concrete historical research [N. A. Mininkov].

The methodology of historical research is a way of solving a scientific problem and achieving its goal - obtaining new historical knowledge. The methodology of historical research as a method of research activity is a system of theoretical knowledge, including the goal, objectives, subject, cognitive strategy, methods and methodology for the production of historical knowledge. This system includes knowledge of two types - subject and methodological. Subject theoretical knowledge is the result of specific historical research. This is theoretical knowledge about historical reality. Methodological theoretical knowledge is the result of special scientific research, the subject of which is the research activity of historians. This is theoretical knowledge about the methods of research activities.

Theoretical knowledge of the subject and methodological content is included in the structure of the methodology of historical research, provided that they are internalized by the methodological consciousness of the researcher, as a result of which they become the design and normative basis of research activities. In the structure of the methodology of historical research, such theoretical knowledge performs the function of cognitive "filters" that mediate the interaction between the subject and the subject of historical research. Such "prerequisite" or "out-of-source" knowledge is sometimes called patterns, which are a syncretic unity of the constructive and the conceptual. These are “images”, on the one hand, of the subject of historical research, and on the other hand, of the very process of its research.

In the structure of the methodology of historical research, the following levels can be distinguished: 1) a model of historical research as a system of normative knowledge that defines the subject area of ​​a particular scientific research, its cognitive strategy, basic principles and cognitive means; 2) the paradigm of historical research as a model and standard for setting and solving a certain class of research problems accepted in the scientific community to which the researcher belongs; 3) historical theories related to the subject area of ​​specific historical research, forming its scientific thesaurus, model of the subject and used as explanatory constructs or understanding concepts; 4) methods of historical research as ways of solving individual research problems.

It is necessary to distinguish between the concept of "methodology of historical research" and the concept of the methodology of history as a branch of special scientific research or a scientific discipline that has been formed within the framework of historical science in order to theoretically ensure the effectiveness of historical research conducted in it. The methodology of history as a branch of science, according to Russian historian the beginning of the 20th century by A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, is divided into two parts: the theory of historical knowledge and the doctrine of the methods of historical thinking. In the 20th century, the subject area of ​​methodology as a scientific discipline began to include the principles and methods of historical research, the laws of the process of historical knowledge, as well as such non-methodological issues as the meaning of history, the role of the masses in history, the laws of the historical process. At present, the methodology of history is considered as a scientific discipline that provides the organization of the research process in order to obtain a new and maximum reliable knowledge[N. A. Mininkov]. Consequently, the subject of the methodology of history as a scientific discipline is historical research itself.

The selection of historical research as a subject of the methodology of history as a scientific discipline raises important questions: is this research expedient or is it of an arbitrary nature, what conditions determine the possibility of obtaining new historical knowledge, are there logic and norms for the research activity of a historian, is its process cognizable ?

The inner world of a historian always requires a certain freedom of creativity, it is associated with inspiration, intuition, imagination and some other unique mental qualities of a scientist. Therefore, in this respect, historical research as creativity is an art. At the same time, historical research, in order to be scientific, must be carried out in accordance with certain principles and requirements that a scientist must comply with. Therefore, freedom of creativity, "flashes of insight" in historical science inevitably coexist with the scientist's ideas about the necessary elements of purposeful cognitive activity. Therefore, historical research is not only scientific creativity, but also, to a certain extent, a craft, that is, a cognitive activity subject to certain regulatory requirements. The study of these norms, bringing them into a system of purposeful activity, its theoretical justification makes it possible to exercise conscious control over the process of concrete historical research, constantly improve its practice, and also transfer the experience of research skills and teach it. This is directly practical value methodology of history as a scientific discipline.

A. V. Lubsky

The definition of the concept is cited from the ed.: Theory and Methodology of Historical Science. Terminological dictionary. Rep. ed. A.O. Chubaryan. [M.], 2014, p. 274-277.

Literature:

Kosolapov VV Methodology and logic of historical research. Kiev. 1977. S. 50; Lappo-Danshevsky A.S. Methodology of history. M, 2006. S. 18; Lubsky A. V. Alternative models of historical research: conceptual interpretation of cognitive practices. Saarbriicken, 2010; Mipinkov N. A. Methodology of history: a guide for a novice researcher. Rostov n / D, 2004. S. 93-94: Smolensky N. I. Theory and methodology of history: textbook. allowance 2nd ed., ster. M., 2008. S. 265.