Modern historical science briefly. History as a science
Methods of studying history and modern historical science.
Empirical and theoretical levels of knowledge.
Historical and logical
Abstraction and absolutization
Analysis and synthesis
Deduction and induction, etc.
1.Historical and genetic development
2.Historical and comparative
3.historical and typological classification
4.historical-system method (everything in the system)
5. Biographical, problematic, chronological, problem-chronological.
Modern historical science differs from the historical science of all previous eras in that it develops in a new information space, borrowing its own methods from it, and itself influences its formation. Now the task is coming to the fore not just writing historical works on a particular topic, but the creation of a verified history, verified by large and reliable databases created by the efforts of creative teams.
Features of modern historical science.
1. Socio-cultural development
2. Spiritual and mental foundations
3. Ethno-demographic features
4. Natural and geographical features
5. Political and economic aspects
6. Providentialism (by the will of God)
7. Physiocrats (natural phenomena, not God, but man)
8. Geographic, public, social factors.
9. Interdisciplinary approaches (social anthropology, gender studies).
Humanity in the Age of Primitiveness.
Primitive society (also prehistoric society) - a period in the history of mankind before the invention of writing, after which there is an opportunity for historical research based on the study of written sources. In a broad sense, the word "prehistoric" is applicable to any period before the invention of writing, starting from the moment the Universe arose (about 14 billion years ago), but in a narrow sense - only to the prehistoric past of man.
Periods of development of primitive society
In the 40s of the XX century, Soviet scientists Efimenko, Kosven, Pershits and others proposed periodization systems for primitive society, the criterion of which was the evolution of forms of ownership, the degree of division of labor, family relations, etc. In a generalized form, such periodization can be represented as follows:
1. the era of the primitive herd;
2. the era of the tribal system;
3. the era of the decomposition of the communal-tribal system (the emergence of cattle breeding, plow farming and metal processing, the emergence of elements of exploitation and private property).
Stone Age
The Stone Age is the oldest period in the history of mankind, when the main tools and weapons were made mainly of stone, but wood and bone were also used. At the end of the Stone Age, the use of clay (dishes, brick buildings, sculpture) spread.
Periodization of the Stone Age:
Paleolithic:
The Lower Paleolithic is the period of the appearance of the oldest human species and the widespread distribution of Homo erectus.
The Middle Paleolithic is a period of displacement by evolutionarily more advanced species of people, including modern humans. Neanderthals dominated Europe during the entire Middle Paleolithic.
The Upper Paleolithic is the period of domination of the modern type of people throughout the globe in the era of the last glaciation.
Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic; The period is characterized by the development of technology for the production of stone tools and the general culture of man. Ceramic is missing.
Neolithic - the era of the emergence of agriculture. Tools and weapons are still stone, but their production is brought to perfection, and ceramics are widely distributed.
copper age
Copper Age, Copper-Stone Age, Chalcolithic or Eneolithic - a period in the history of primitive society, a transitional period from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age. Approximately covers the period 4-3 thousand BC. e., but in some areas it exists longer, and in some it is absent altogether. Most often, the Eneolithic is included in the Bronze Age, but sometimes it is also considered a separate period. During the Eneolithic, copper tools were common, but stone tools still prevailed.
Bronze Age
The Bronze Age is a period in the history of primitive society, characterized by the leading role of bronze products, which was associated with an improvement in the processing of metals such as copper and tin obtained from ore deposits, and the subsequent production of bronze from them. The Bronze Age is the second, late phase of the Early Metal Age, succeeding the Copper Age and preceding the Iron Age. In general, the chronological framework of the Bronze Age: 5-6 thousand years BC. e.
iron age
The Iron Age is a period in the history of primitive society, characterized by the spread of iron metallurgy and the manufacture of iron tools. For civilizations of the Bronze Age, it goes beyond the history of primitive society, for other peoples, civilization develops in the era of the Iron Age.
The term "Iron Age" is usually applied to the "barbarian" cultures of Europe, which existed simultaneously with the great civilizations of antiquity (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Parthia). The “barbarians” were distinguished from the ancient cultures by the absence or rare use of writing, in connection with which information about them has come down to us either according to archeology or references in ancient sources. On the territory of Europe in the era of the Iron Age, M. B. Schukin identified six "barbarian worlds":
Celts (La Tène culture);
proto-Germans (mainly Jastorf culture + southern Scandinavia);
mostly Proto-Baltic cultures of the forest zone (possibly including Proto-Slavs);
Proto-Finno-Ugric and Proto-Sami cultures of the northern forest zone (mainly along rivers and lakes);
steppe Iranian-speaking cultures (Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.);
pastoral and agricultural cultures of the Thracians, Dacians and Getae.
ORIGINS OF ROMAN CIVILIZATION
The Romans were proud that, unlike many other peoples, they knew the history of their country to ancient times, starting from the day when, according to legend, Rome was founded - April 21, 753 BC. e. In fact, the most ancient period of Roman history holds many mysteries, which to this day cause controversy between scientists.
peninsula
Roman civilization, like ancient Greek civilization, was maritime. The Apennine peninsula, fenced off from the mainland by the Alps, is washed from the west by the Tyrrhenian Sea, and from the east by the Adriatic Sea, which are parts of the Mediterranean Sea. True, unlike Greece, the coastline of Italy is much less indented: there are not a large number of convenient harbors and islands that made life so easy for Greek sailors. But this did not prevent Rome from becoming the largest maritime power. The most convenient bays were in the Gulf of Naples and at the mouth of the Tiber.
The climate in Italy is mild and warm, only in the north there are severe winters. The most fertile were the valleys of the rivers Po, Tiber, Arno. Conditions for agriculture were not as fertile as, for example, in Egypt or in Mesopotamia, although many ancient historians praised the abundant vegetation and other natural wealth of Italy.
Let us outline the most important conditions, thanks to which the Romans at the present time have risen to such a height. The first of these conditions is that Italy, like an island, is surrounded, as by a sure fence, by the seas, with the exception of only a few parts, which, in turn, are protected by rugged mountains. The second condition is that, although most of its coasts do not have harbors, the existing harbors are vast and very convenient. One of them is especially beneficial for repelling invasions from outside; the other is useful for attacks on foreign enemies and for extensive trade.
Romans and their neighbors
In ancient times, the Apennine Peninsula was inhabited by many tribes: among them were the Ligures, Umbrians, Veneti, as well as the Latins who lived in the lower reaches of the Tiber. This region, separated from its neighbors by low mountains, was called Latium. It was here that the center of the future Roman civilization arose.
In the 8th century BC e., i.e., in the era of the birth of Roman civilization, all these tribes have not yet completely left the state of primitiveness. But next to them lived other peoples who stood at a higher stage of development - Greek, Carthaginian settlers and the Etruscan tribe.
In the VIII-VI centuries. BC e. Greek colonists settled along the shores of southern and central Italy, as well as in Sicily. Cities arose there, among them Naples and Syracuse - large trade and cultural centers. This played a big role in the development of the future Roman civilization. Indeed, in the colonial cities, the same forms of government were established as in Greece itself, philosophy, literature and art flourished. Greek technology, mythology, the alphabet, agricultural skills, political structure - all this, to one degree or another, influenced the tribes that inhabited Italy.
The western part of Sicily was colonized by the Carthaginians. Carthage - in the future the main enemy of Rome - was the largest North African colony of the Phoenicians. It was located on the territory of modern Tunisia. Carthage, the most important center of intermediary trade, was actually independent and sent colonists along the shores of the Mediterranean. The Carthaginians were formidable opponents of the Greeks: in the 7th-6th centuries. BC e. they waged a stubborn struggle with them for Sicily and managed to conquer a significant part of the island.
Many mysteries are connected with the Etruscan tribe: its origin is unknown, although most historians believe that the Etruscans came to Italy from somewhere in the East. The Etruscans used the Greek alphabet, but it has not yet been possible to decipher their language. And yet, enough of the Etruscan culture has survived to judge its high level. The Etruscans were the closest neighbors of the Romans: they occupied an area called Etruria (in the region of modern Tuscany). Cities were erected there with a regular rectangular layout and stone houses and temples. The Etruscans were engaged in agriculture, trade and sea piracy, crafts.
The Etruscans had a strong influence on the Romans: this manifested itself in art, religion, in the planning of cities, in the special architecture of houses - with a courtyard. From the Etruscans, the Romans took the signs of royal power - bundles of rods with hatchets embedded in them. Greek culture was adopted through the Etruscans. Ties with Etruria were strong: young men from noble families were sent there to study, in the 6th century. BC e. the kings of the Etruscan dynasty ruled over the Romans, and in Rome itself there was even a special quarter where immigrants from Etruria lived.
As the power of the Romans increased, the Etruscans lost their importance. By the middle of the 1st c. BC e., having suffered a series of defeats from the Romans, they no longer played any role in the history of ancient Italy, and their language was soon forgotten. A similar fate befell the Greek city-colonies: they began to lose power in the 5th-4th centuries. BC e. Among the neighbors of the Romans, the most formidable opponents until the middle of the II century. BC e. only the Carthaginians remained.
So, not only natural conditions favored the formation of Rome: the Romans began their history, surrounded by the Greeks, Carthaginians, Etruscans, who stood at a higher level of culture. Communication with them made it possible to take advantage of "foreign" achievements, and this accelerated the pace of development of Roman civilization.
THE WAY TO THE REPUBLIC
Patricians and plebeians
After the establishment of the republican system, conflicts in Roman society escalated. The main opposing forces were patricians and plebeians. The position of the patricians after the overthrow of the monarchy improved significantly. Consuls were chosen from among them - the two highest officials in the state, who performed the functions of the former kings. Only patricians could be elected to the Senate - the main body of the Roman Republic, which decided the most important issues of foreign and domestic policy. Only patricians could become priests. They knew all the subtleties of legal proceedings and held it in their hands. In addition, the patricians accumulated more and more land: they had the right to occupy plots from the land fund of their community - a fund that constantly increased as Rome won military victories. So the patricians had large land holdings.
The plebeians were deprived of this privilege, many of them went bankrupt and even turned into slaves for debts. There was only one way to solve this problem - to equalize rights with the patricians. In this case, the plebeians would also have access to government.
The outcome of the conflict largely depended on the characteristics of life in Rome. Already the first centuries of its history, Rome spent in endless wars with its neighbors, suffering defeats or gaining victories, and in the future remained a militarized state. In the initial period of the history of this civilization, military campaigns were held every year, starting in March and ending in October. Each citizen was required to participate in 20 military campaigns in the infantry or 10 if he was in the cavalry. Evasion from military service threatened with sale into slavery. It was impossible to assemble a strong army without the participation of the plebeians in it; the patricians thus became dependent on the plebeians.
In 494 BC. e. the plebeians refused to go on a military campaign and left Rome fully armed, setting up camp on the Sacred Mountain, one of the hills adjacent to Rome. This tactic worked - the patricians were forced to give in, and the plebeians won the right to have people's tribunes - defenders of their interests. The person of the tribune was considered inviolable. In the future, the plebeians repeatedly used the same method of pressure, and the patricians always made concessions.
One of the most important achievements was the appearance of the first written laws in Rome. In 449 BC. e. the laws were written on twelve copper tablets and put on public display in the Forum - the main square of Rome. Thus was an end to the arbitrariness of the patricians, who had previously judged "according to custom." But the struggle for political rights and land is not yet over. Only in the III century. BC e. the plebeians eventually became equal in their rights with the patricians. Marriages between patricians and plebeians were no longer prohibited; the decisions made by the assemblies of the plebeians had the force of law; one of the consuls was necessarily selected from the plebeians. Debt slavery was abolished, and the right to own public land was limited: now every citizen could receive a plot of no more than 125 hectares.
In the III century. BC e. finally formed the civil community of Rome. By this time, its inner life had also changed, and its composition expanded - the patrician community turned into a patrician-plebeian one.
Civic community of Rome
In the Roman community, as in the Greek, collective and private land ownership was combined; all citizens had equal rights and were not only farmers, but also warriors. The concepts of "good farmer", "good warrior" and "good citizen" for a long time merged into one whole in the minds of the Romans.
The bravest men and the most enterprising warriors come out of the farmers, and agriculture is the most pious and stable occupation ...
The life of the community was organized in such a way as to maintain a balance between personal and public benefit. In Rome, there were no taxes that would have supported the state apparatus. People who held the highest positions did not receive a salary and had to organize feasts, games, build temples, and provide poor citizens with allotments of land at their own expense. The way up was open primarily to the nobility, which included the patricians and the plebeian elite. On the other hand, the richer a citizen was, the more money he was obliged to spend for the common good.
Service in the army was a duty for citizens, but an honorable duty. A person could not become a statesman without military experience. Only in the IV century. soldiers began to be paid salaries: before that, they were content with the fruits of their victories and had to take care of their weapons and food themselves. When the war began, the citizens took a loan, which was returned after the victory. Military booty passed into the ownership of the community, and it was used by all citizens. The land taken away was added to the public, and then divided between the soldiers and the landless. Precious metals and other tribute went to the treasury of the community. The rest was distributed among the soldiers, who were also given gifts by the generals.
Nobility - from the Latin word "nobilis" - "noble, noble."
Religion was of great importance in the life of the Romans. The most ancient gods were the two-faced Janus - the creator of the Universe, Jupiter - the god of the sky, Mars - the god of war. The Romans revered Vesta - the keeper of the hearth and state, Juno - the goddess of the moon and the patroness of women, Minerva - the goddess of wisdom, the patroness of crafts. There were many other gods, and their number increased all the time. The Romans willingly accepted "foreign" gods - Etruscan, Greek, and then Eastern.
Religious rites were a kind of public duty of citizens: members of the community had to participate in the rites of their family, honoring the "family" gods, and in national rites. Any business in ancient Rome began with the fact that the will of the gods was requested.
Historians call Roman religion rational and practical. Relations with the gods were, so to speak, of a business nature: one had to be faithful to the gods, strictly observe rituals and various prohibitions, and in return one could count on their help.
The highest court over a person in Ancient Rome was carried out not by the gods, but by society - fellow citizens assessed the actions of a person, expressed approval or disapproval. The best citizens were role models, their exploits, committed for the common good, had to be guided by a person.
Thus, the idea of "common benefit" determined both the order in the civil community and the behavior of each of its individual members. The obligations of the Roman citizen were clearly established: in the first place was the duty to society, in the second - to the family, and in the last place - concern for one's personal welfare.
Popular assemblies played an important role in the social life of Rome. The resolutions of the people's assemblies had the force of law. In addition, the tribunes had high powers: they had the right to impose a ban on the decisions of the court, the senate and senior officials if these decisions infringed on the interests of the plebeians. The doors of the tribune's house were to remain open day and night, so that any plebeian could find protection there.
The most important governing body was the senate, which consisted of the patricians and the top of the plebs: he was in charge of domestic policy and determined the external, under the control of the senate were finances and a religious cult. The Senate was an aristocratic body. Historians believe that, despite the importance of popular assemblies, it was he who ultimately led the state. In this respect, Roman democracy differed from Athenian.
In republican Rome, traditions inherited from the monarchy were also preserved. The supreme power belonged to two consuls. True, they were annually re-elected, but their powers practically did not differ from those that the kings had previously had. The consuls, after their election, were even given symbols of royal power. Outside Rome, during wars, the power of the consuls was indisputable, but in the city it was limited to the senate and popular assemblies. Ancient historians were aware of the originality of their statehood and considered it the most perfect.
I Republic - in literal translation from Latin "public business". A state in which power belongs to people chosen by society for a certain period of time.
The first of these was Polybius (201-120 BC), a Greek by birth, who lived in Rome for many years and became an enthusiastic admirer of it. Polybius created a theory that explained why the Romans were able to rise above many peoples. In his opinion, Rome had the best form of government - a mixed one, combining both democracy (popular assemblies), and the monarchical principle (consuls), and aristocratic (senate). None of these principles of government did not suppress the others, but taken together, they constituted a single harmonious whole.
Path to world domination
In the IV century. BC e. The Romans took over the entire territory of Central Italy.
The Romans subjugated almost the entire known world to their power and raised their power to such a height that was unthinkable for their ancestors and will not be surpassed by their descendants.
The Romans declared most of the conquered Italic tribes to be their allies. This meant that they had to pay a military tax to Rome, to put up detachments to help the Roman army. Rome did not interfere in the internal affairs of the allies, but did not allow them to conclude agreements among themselves. Roman colonies began to appear throughout Italy. Thanks to them, two problems were solved: the poor Romans received land and, with the help of the colonies, the local population was kept from speaking out against Rome.
Having conquered vast territories, Rome remained a relatively closed city-state: only a very small part of the Italian population had Roman citizenship.
VIII century. BC e. it was the turn of Southern Italy, where the rich Greek colonies were located, and then Sicily. Because of this fertile island, the Romans had to wage cruel wars with Carthage for decades. The Punic Wars (the Romans called the Carthaginians Punnes), which began in the middle of the 3rd century BC. BC e., continued intermittently until the middle of the II century. BC e.; only in 146 the city of Carthage was captured and literally wiped off the face of the earth - burned to the ground.
2nd century BC e. was marked by a victory over Greece. Having crushed the two most serious opponents and rivals, Rome in the II-I centuries. BC e. became a world power covering the entire Mediterranean, and continued to expand its borders in the future.
Military successes and the expansion of the territory caused global changes in various areas of Roman civilization. The victories over Carthage and Greece enriched Rome. Huge indemnities were levied from the conquered peoples, and a stream of slave power began to flow to the slave markets.
Conquered countries (outside of Italy) were turned into provinces of Rome and taxed. Trade relations began to be quickly established with rich provinces.
Socio-economic crisis of the community
The flourishing of trade and the direct robbery of new possessions gave an important result - commodity-money relations began to actively develop in Rome.
Commodity-money relations and a sharp increase in the number of slaves changed a lot in the life of the Roman peasantry. Until the II century. BC e. in Italy there was a mass of small and medium-sized peasant farms, in which mostly family members (surnames) worked, providing for themselves. In II-I centuries. BC e. such subsistence farms began to die and were replaced by other, larger ones, in which the labor of slaves was used, and the products were partially sold to the market.
The new estates were called villas; according to the stories of contemporaries, we know what they were. An outstanding political figure of that era, Katan the Elder, described his own estate, which he considered exemplary. Cato had a complex economy: an olive grove, a vineyard, a pasture for cattle and a field with grain crops. To serve such a villa, the labor of many people, mostly slaves, was required: 13 people looked after the olives, at least 16 people looked after the vineyard. Cato was very interested in the profitability of his villa, the ability to sell his products. “The owner should strive to buy less and sell more,” he wrote.
The small and middle peasants were ruined or simply forcibly deprived of their land, while the slaves began to turn into the main producers, crowding out the labor of the free. Ancient historians wrote with anxiety and indignation that the old law was forgotten, according to which a citizen is supposed to have no more than 125 hectares of land. The Greek historian Plutarch reconstructed the picture of this process in detail: “The rich began to transfer rent to themselves with the help of figureheads and, in the end, openly secured most of the land for themselves.”
Peasants deprived of land became tenants or farm laborers. However, the farm laborers could not secure a permanent income: their work was seasonal. And a huge mass of peasants poured into the cities, increasing the number of urban plebs. These new plebeians bore little resemblance to their predecessors, the free farmers who fought for rights against the patricians. Some managed to get a job as artisans or construction workers, others formed a special layer - the ancient lumpen proletariat - and existed at the expense of state distributions of bread, money or the generosity of politicians who won votes.
Slaves, who in that era turned into a special class, were also not homogeneous. Their numbers have increased tremendously compared to the former times, when slavery was domesticated. Only on the island of Delos, one of the largest centers of the slave trade, about 10 thousand slaves were sometimes sold per day. Some of them became state slaves, but mostly they passed into the hands of private owners, also forming two groups - rural and urban.
The means of labor are divided into three parts: speaking tools that make inarticulate sounds and dumb tools; slaves belong to the speakers, oxen to those who make inarticulate sounds, carts to the dumb. Marcus Varro, Roman writer, 116-27 AD BC e.
Among the urban slaves, who, of course, were in a more privileged position, there were many educated, skilled people. Through the learned Greek slaves, for whom, by the way, the Romans remained barbarians, Hellenistic culture penetrated into Rome. The "slave intelligentsia" created technical improvements: pipes through which steam flowed and heated the premises, special polishing of marble, mirror tiles, etc.
Transformations have also taken place in the upper strata of society. The Roman nobility began to be pressed by a new monetary aristocracy - horsemen. The horsemen belonged, as a rule, to the humble, but wealthy citizens who got rich on trade or tax collection in the provinces.
Significant changes took place in society, its structure became more complicated, and, consequently, the relationships between different layers became more complicated. For example, rivalry arose between the nobility and the equites for the right to exploit the provinces. In addition, the horsemen rushed to higher positions, practically inaccessible to them at that time. There was a growing conflict between large and medium, as well as small landowners. Already in the II century. BC e. the first slave uprising took place (in Sicily) - another important hotbed of social tension opened.
Serious problems were associated with the provinces. Before Rome the question arose: how to manage them? A governor was appointed to the province, who for a year, until his term ended, had full power and, in fact, uncontrollably disposed of it there, as in his fiefdom. The provincials were also ruined by tax collectors, who contributed the due amount to the treasury, and then robbed the population for their own benefit. In essence, management was reduced to the robbery of the provinces, and this was unprofitable even from the point of view of the Romans themselves.
The inhabitants of the provinces had other problems, and the main one was how to obtain citizenship rights? The population of the provinces, including the Roman colonists, had more or less curtailed rights, if not none at all, and this, of course, was a source of discontent and conflict.
Having become a huge power, Rome could no longer remain a community. The first signs of the destruction of its traditional structure, the norms of communal life appeared in the 2nd century. BC e., and soon this process unfolded in full force.
Looking for an exit
The answer to the approaching crisis was the reform of Tiberius and Gaius of the Greeks. A descendant of an old plebeian family that belonged to the Roman nobility, Tiberius Grayakh, elected tribune of the people, in! 33g. Don. created a land reform project. He decided to resurrect the principle of equality in the use of land. Therefore, the main point of his program was that from the asche it was possible to take only a strictly defined norm of plots. A special commission was organized, which was supposed to take away the surpluses from large landowners and distribute them among landless citizens.
This program aroused strong opposition from members of the Senate. The atmosphere was tense, and during one of the popular meetings between opponents and supporters of Gracchus there was an armed clash in which the people's tribune was killed. For the first time in its history, a civil war broke out on the streets of Rome, albeit on a small scale - a formidable sign of trouble in society.
The reform of Tiberius Gracchus to some extent managed to be implemented by his brother. Guy Gracchus resumed the activities of the commission, having managed to allocate land to 50-75 thousand families, but he was also defeated. The struggle again came to an armed clash, in which about 3 thousand people died, and Gracchus ordered his slave to kill himself.
The Gracchi brothers wanted to resurrect and preserve the old community, but it was impossible to do this by the “administrative” way (as, indeed, by any other). Meanwhile, the conflict over land flared up, until finally, a grandiose uprising of the Italian population broke out - the Allied War (90-88 BC). Rome was forced to make concessions: the Italian population received the rights of Roman citizens, and, consequently, the opportunity to participate in political life. However, the equalization of rights did not mean a return to equalization in the use of land.
Result The allied war was very important: now Rome was no longer the only center in which full-fledged citizens were concentrated; its people lost their former privileges. Rome as a civil community ended its existence.
At the origins of imperial power
The last decades of the existence of the republic were full of upheavals: Rome survived the Allied War, unrest in the provinces, a grandiose uprising of slaves led by Spartacus, in battles with which the Roman legions were defeated for a long time, and finally, the struggle of political groups for power, which resulted in civil wars.
In these turbulent years, a new form of government began to emerge, destroying the principles of the republican system - the sole power of the dictator or emperor. Such titles existed in Rome before, but they were used only in extraordinary circumstances and for a short time (usually in case of war). In the 1st century BC e. twice the situation was repeated when they were given for life, without a time limit.
The talented commander Sulla was the first to achieve dictatorial power, the second - Caesar (100-44 BC), whose glory as a military leader and strategist survived the centuries. Both of them relied primarily on the army, and this is not accidental: the army in that era turned into the most reliable force, which was used not only to pacify the enemy, but also to resolve internal political disputes.
The dictatorship of Sulla and Caesar did not last long. But the transition to imperial rule was already inevitable.
Only with the help of a strong individual power could it be possible to maintain the political unity of the vast and diverse empire, streamline the administration of the provinces, and satisfy the interests of various sections of society.
Finally, the imperial sole power was established in 27 BC. e., when Octavian, a relative of Caesar, received from the senate the title of emperor for life, as well as the titles of August, that is, “exalted by a deity”, and “son of god”, as was the case in the Eastern despotisms.
What was the significance of the change in the system of government for Roman civilization? A. Toynbee believed that the creation of an empire is the desire of an already dying civilization to avoid its fate. For Toynbee, imperial Rome is a civilization that has been abandoned by the "creative spirit". But, paradoxically, to the people of that era, the empire and all the orders established in it seemed eternal and ideal, their “ephemeral nature” was invisible to contemporaries.
"Golden Age" of the Empire
The beginning of the imperial era was brilliant, especially in comparison with the previous turbulent, troubled time of internal conflicts. This was largely due to the personality of Octavian Augustus, who is rightfully considered one of the most prominent political figures in Rome.
Augustus received full power: he disposed of the treasury, negotiated with other states, resolved issues of war and peace, nominated candidates for the highest government positions. However, Augustus himself, who became the first person in the state and had enormous powers, used them very wisely. He called himself a princeps, that is, the first person on the list of senators, emphasizing by this respect for the senate and the traditions of republican Rome (therefore, the era of the reign of Augustus and his successors is called "principate"). Moreover, Augustus his supporters claimed to have restored the Republic. In the minds of the Romans, the republic did not exclude sole rule, if this did not contradict the principle of “common benefit”. Jupiter, throwing thunders, - we believe - reigns in heaven: here on earth Augustus will be counted among the gods ...
Horace
To a certain extent, this principle underlay the activities of Octavian Augustus, who tried to stabilize relations between different strata of society. While strengthening centralized power, he also made concessions from which everyone, except the slaves, benefited to some extent.
Senators remained a privileged layer, although they were obedient to the will of Augustus. At the same time, Octavian attracted new trade and money nobility, horsemen, to his side, appointing them to high positions. Popular assemblies also survived, although they began to lose their significance even before the reign of Augustus. Poor citizens received grain free of charge every month.
Augustus wanted to resurrect the ancient purity of morals and introduced laws to limit luxury; severe punishments awaited all who were guilty of adultery. The emperor personally set an example of gentle, humane treatment of slaves.
Respecting the interests of society, Augustus did not forget about strengthening the imperial power: he expanded the administrative apparatus, under his command there were special troops that maintained order in Rome and on the borders.
In this era, Roman civilization was taking off: a certain stability was achieved in society, Roman literature reached an unusually high flowering, in which a whole galaxy of talented original poets appeared, combining both Greek and primordially Roman traditions (Ovid, Virgil, Horace, Tibull). Augustus was the patron of art and science, under him a water pipe was laid in Rome, the construction of magnificent temples that adorned the city was launched. Contemporaries perceived this era as a "golden age".
Empire after August
However, after the death of Augustus (AD 14), it quickly became apparent that the system of government he had created was not so perfect. The sole power opened up opportunities for manifestations of despotism and arbitrariness, and from time to time turned into tyranny, against which few dared to protest. A vivid example of the violation of old republican traditions and legality is the attitude of the Senate towards the emperor Nero (ruled from 54 to 68), who was guilty of the murder of his wife and mother. Nero himself was surprised when the senate, despite the atrocities committed by the emperor, welcomed him; According to legend, Nero exclaimed: “Until now, not a single princeps knew how far he could go!”
Of course, not all emperors followed in the footsteps of Nero; and in imperial Rome, legality was considered the basis of power. Many rulers became famous for their wisdom and humanism (for example, the emperors of the Antonine dynasty, Marcus Aurelius - "philosopher on the throne"), and their activities resurrected dreams of a "golden age". In the era of the empire, the position of slaves softened somewhat,
I love history. I do it: I write and publish articles, monographs. However, like any person connected with history, I cannot raise the question of its scientific nature, or rather, of scientific character of the Russian mainstream of history
.
This is unclear specifically studying history. Yes, there will be a classic answer - a historical process. Great, great. And what is it? Oh yes, human activity overlaid on a timeline. And here comes the first (and key) difficulty: there are a number of sciences that study human activities. The struggle for power - political science, behavioral aspects - psychology, management - economics, relations in the international arena - international relations, the struggle for power - political science. Each of these sciences has developed its own methodology, its own theories and principles. And here it turns out that there is no place left for the classical historian, because a political scientist should scientifically judge the political struggle during the First World War in Russia (it is in Russia that a perverted idea has been formulated that every old woman and every drunkard under the fence can judge the struggle for power; in the West, political science has received precisely scientific development: with a powerful theoretical and methodological base, sometimes even hyper attention to mathematical methods; with active borrowing from related disciplines; I’m already silent about the fact that a number of political scientists received Nobel Prizes in economics by education), to study the economic foundations of serfdom - an economist (or a political economist), etc. In fact, we can talk about history of something, about overturning modern sciences into the past. What is a historian to do who does not own
fully methods of none of these sciences
? The answer regarding synthesis and general evolution does not sound convincing: interdisciplinarity is not an easy thing, it also needs (!) A powerful philosophical base. And very often in reality it turns out that history in Russia turns into the work of "bespectacled uncles and aunts" who, armed with common sense, a historical approach, and a critical analysis of documents, began to judge the past. It is especially funny when, not having the proper personal social experience (you can’t gain it in libraries and archives), they “blank out” such great figures of their eras as Peter 1, Witte or Stolypin. Few think about what they can learn and what they can't; what theoretical premises should be used; what methods they use, what these methods allow you to see, and what they don't; where there is a research error, etc.
Of course, history has its own methodology. However, it is not adequate for economic, sociological or political analysis. Moreover, it is not adequate for analyzing the development of the historical process as a whole. And in general: how many professional historians study precisely the historical process? The vast majority concentrate on their favorite narrow topics, and how the historical process develops is on their side.
All historical methods are good for only one: reconstruction
events(although Often
it turns out that talking about methodology is one thing, and conducting specific research is another altogether). In fact, the story turns into a set of facts, excellent empirical base for other sciences, no more. Yes, historians try to look for causal relationships, but most do it within the framework of unscientific narrative logic: what happened before is the cause, what happened later is the effect. Plus some of my thoughts on the topic. Nothing complicated: here is a scientific article (or monograph) ready. If you write something interesting on the cover, you can break the money.
Of course, not everyone does this. There are many works that are written with the actual application of the methods of other sciences, as a result, serious research is obtained. But such units. By the way, I am impressed by the Soviet historical school, where history had a number of solid general theoretical and methodological foundations, which also had positive results. Unfortunately, the dominance of one methodology and its too rigid understanding often gave rise to works that were absurd in content....
And again: the point of science is to create new knowledge relevant to the present
. Of course, historians like to postulate that without knowing the past one cannot know the future. But how to explain the present or predict the future through looking into the past, they did not say: how to develop a rigorous scientific methodology to make such transitions. The maximum that historians are capable of: to conduct analogies(without asking, while asking the question: are they appropriate?). But this is not science. On this arsenal traditional domestic historian is exhausted. After all, even intuitively it is clear to everyone, in order to understand the present, one must first peer currently(and many sciences operate in this field). I am already silent that, in addition to complex theoretical constructions, you need to know both the past and the present (and the latter is the misfortune of many traditional historians). Of course, we all understand: it is useful to know history, it should to explain something. But to install theoretically grounded
connection (which rests on more than "I see so") between the past and the present, only a few have been able to. And practically all of them are not classical historians at all. First of all, this is the brilliant Marx. Among others - our economist Kondratiev with his "long cycles". From historians, Toynbee can be recalled. But all these are brilliant (or very outstanding) people. The majority of historians, however, are not capable of creating such intellectual products, and, apparently, do not strive for this ( although they are outraged why they are not paid enough there - not a single good economist or sociologist will make such statements, which is significant).
As a result, we get:
a) historians approach history without special methods of analysis, thereby engaging in a mechanical reconstruction of events, rather than actual analysis (the analysis being carried out must be questioned due to ignorance of the methodology of special disciplines), but this is very useful for other sciences;
b) the knowledge received by traditional historians is largely useless for us, because we have not yet answered the question: how can they be adequately applied to modern times (this question requires scientific and methodological development, and not a superficial answer).
P.S. Of course, not all historians correspond to the above. There are also pleasant exceptions. But we have few of them in Russia.
P.P.S Plus, history can perform another important function for the country: ideological and patriotic education (and also form the basis of collective memory), but this (by and large) does not require serious and in-depth research (often, they are dangerous) - enough myths. Most historians disagree.
Since the 90s a new stage in the development of domestic science begins. Most of all, this affected the humanities. The last decades have given us significant research on the university issue in pre-revolutionary Russia.
One of the studies covering the history of universities throughout the entire 19th century is the collective publication "Higher Education in Russia. Outline of History before 1917." edited by V.G. Kinelev. The charter of 1804 considers the collection as an organic part of the reforms conceived by Alexander I and the "secret committee". The apparatus of the Ministry of Public Education at that time was small and concentrated entirely in the main department of the schools. According to the idea of the reform, each major city had to have its own university, which would be the center of the entire educational district. But the formation and development of universities was held back due to insufficient training of students and a shortage of teachers.
V. A. Zmeev, who studies higher education in pre-revolutionary Russia in its development, also considers the first decades of the 19th century the period of the formation of the university system, the creation of a basis for subsequent development, the expansion of university geography, and the creation of higher educational institutions in the regions.
The same point of view is shared by F. A. Petrov, the author of a multi-volume work on the history of universities. Directly from the creation of the Ministry of Public Education and the publication of the charter of 1804, a network of Russian universities began to form. A hierarchy of educational institutions is established, headed by universities. The most important step of F.A. Petrov considers the approval of university autonomy to be the charter of 1804. The charter of 1804 clearly demarcated the sphere of the state in university life and the sphere of the university itself, within which they could act independently. Thus, a certain balance was established.
A. Yu. Andreev, exploring the influence of Moscow University on the social life of the country, calls the beginning of the 19th century a successful start in the formation of the university system. And, despite the fact that the provisions of the Charter of 1804. were in fact impossible, their very declaration had profound consequences for the further development of universities.
The main distinguishing feature of the formation of the university system in Russia AI Avrus calls the creation of universities exclusively on a state basis, in contrast to Europe. University charter 1804. was created on the model of Western European ones, therefore universities received “... democracy unprecedented at that time in Russia at that time ...” Among the shortcomings, Avrus A. I. names that it was not possible to introduce the freedom of teaching according to the Western model, due to a lack of professors, and freedom hearings, due to a lack of confidence in the independence of students. He also admits that many provisions of the charter remained on paper, since the general freedom granted to universities did not correspond to the surrounding reality.
The period of reaction that began in the next decade, a number of authors, was the result of events in Europe: the victory in the war of 1812-1814, the formation of the "Holy Alliance" - the conclusion of agreements with Germany, where student protests took place at that time and conservative leaders came to the leadership of universities.
Avrus A. I. calls this period “a real campaign against universities”, in which the unification of the ministries of public education and spiritual affairs played a significant role.
As a result of the introduction of a new charter in 1835, the educational districts were transformed on a bureaucratic basis. Uvarov S.S. was a supporter of limiting university autonomy, asserting classicism as the basis of general education, class restrictions on access to higher education. However, the authors propose to abandon the stereotype about the government's desire to suppress higher education, that all changes were reactionary in nature.
Contrary to popular belief that after 1835 universities were completely deprived of their administrative functions and thus were separated from secondary education, F.A. Petrov believes that, on the contrary, never before has secondary education been so subordinated to higher education. University autonomy was not destroyed by the new charter, but "... was only introduced into a certain framework, which allowed universities to focus on solving directly scientific and educational problems." It was at the time of the charter of 1835 that F.A. Petrov refers to the final formation of the university system in Russia. At this time, the main tasks of university education are formed. The cadres of domestic professors are being formed, students are being formed as a social stratum.
O. V. Popov analyzes the drafts of the Charter of 1835 prepared by leading political figures and their role in the preparation of the reform. The author refuses to interpret the Charter of 1835. as unambiguously reactionary. Considering the drafts and provisions of the Charter, O. V. Popov highlights the positive principles laid down in this document and comes to the conclusion that the Charter of 1835. reflects the change in public views on the importance of universities and is quite consistent with the requirements of the time.
From the negative assessment of the Charter of 1835. and the activities of the Minister of Public Education Uvarov S. S. refuses and Whittaker Ts. Kh: “... if we consider it (activity) according to the criteria of modernization ... it turns out that Uvarov did everything necessary for his time. He laid the foundations for future development, as he managed to grow a well-educated and enlightened elite ... "
Avrus A. I. especially notes the duality in university politics. On the one hand, there is a desire to include universities in the administrative-bureaucratic system of the country and, accordingly, detailed regulation and control over their activities, on the other hand, an understanding of the need to develop education, including university education. It was during this period that significant progress was made in university education, and domestic scientific schools began to form in a number of universities. This progressive development, the progress of universities until the mid-1940s, began to slow down in the second half of the 1940s. Avrus connects this process with the revolutionary events in Europe that began in 1848. The situation in the universities became more and more alarming.
A new university charter was given to universities in 1863. V. A. Zmeev, like most researchers, calls university reform one of the points of the Great Reforms, which “... set in motion all the social institutions of Russia and could not but affect higher education ...”
S. I. Posokhov speaks about the special significance of the Charter of 1863, as a document for the first time adopted during a wide public discussion.
R. G. Eymontova, the author of a number of monographs and articles on the university reform of 1863, recreates in all details the struggle "at the top" on the issue of university policy. The author does not confine himself to analyzing the development of the draft charter, but presents the complex and controversial course of Alexander II, not only examines the charter and the main changes in university life after the reforms, but also analyzes the process of introducing new rules into life. The reform of 1863 was conceived as an act of granting complete university autonomy. However, as it turned out, the public expected much more from the reforms than the tsarist government intended to give. But it was too late to retreat - the university question was already being discussed in the liberal press. Thus, "the university reform was wrested from the autocracy by the force of the democratic onslaught." However, the most radical innovations were eliminated. Be that as it may, the new university law was no small concession, a concession by the authorities to the public. But the significance of the charter of 1863 cannot be underestimated. Official guardianship over universities is significantly weakened. Gradually, university autonomy, brought to naught by the charter of 1835, is being restored.
The authors of the collection “Higher Education in Russia. Outline of history until 1917" also note the incompleteness of the university reform. The school was made responsible for the "…pernicious false teachings" spreading in the community. The law was passed, but was repealed before it could bring results. The statutes of 1863 failed to stop the tide of social movement, and liberal university law was held responsible for this. Accordingly, the charter of 1884 was adopted not with the aim of bringing something new to the life of universities, but with the aim of repealing the charter of 1863.
Zmeev V.A. notes that despite the almost complete abolition of university freedoms, the Charter of 1884. created the necessary prerequisites for the dynamic development of the entire university system. In the following decades, "... the state higher school developed in a balanced way in the direction of improving the quality of training."
In addition to studies that continue the tradition of considering the formation and development of the Russian university system in the 19th century, depending on the turns of government policy, in recent years a number of articles have appeared on the history of higher education, introducing a new concept of the “Russian model of education”. The team of authors contrasts the "Russian model of education" and the process of formation of the Western European university system, substantiates the special path of domestic universities, which lies in the exclusive role of the state in the creation and management of universities. “We are talking about the formation of a special, Russian type of university, we emphasize, a state-owned university, distinguished by a number of special features unknown to the West. Among them are the rich scientific saturation of curricula and programs, high spirituality and citizenship, and finally, the ability for a collective feat in extreme conditions, which gave rise to such unique features of the national higher education as inescapable internal energy and vitality.
NON-STATE GENERAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION OF HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION
"MOSCOW ECONOMIC INSTITUTE"
Faculty of Design
ESSAY
Subject "History"
On the topic " History as a science. Russia in the world historical process»
Performed:
Anahit A. Harutyunyan
Correspondence department
Moscow
2017
1. Preface
6. The history of Russia is an integral part of world history. general and special in historical development
10. Literature
Foreword
The word "history" came to us from the ancient Greek language, where it meant "investigation, establishment." History was identified with the establishment of authenticity, the truth of events and facts, and meant any knowledge obtained through research, and not just historical knowledge proper in the modern sense. Currently, the term "history" has several meanings. On the one hand, history refers to any process of development in nature and society (for example, the history of species, the history of science, etc.), on the other hand, the concept of "history" refers to the past stored in the memory of people, as well as any story about it past. History, as a special humanitarian science, is engaged in the study of the past of human society in all its diversity. The past does not disappear - it lives in each of us, determining our destiny, our daily life, our development vector, our life path. Therefore, history always surrounds a person and is present in ourselves, although it is sometimes very difficult to catch it with a glance, hearing or thought. It is this “look”, the turning inward of ourselves, that all the humanities are devoted to, among which historical knowledge occupies a special place.
The history of a country is, first of all, the history of its people, and every nation has the right to be proud of its history. Just as the life history of an individual person is embodied in the characteristics of his personality, in his knowledge, skills, character traits, so the past of an entire people is embodied in the achievements of our time. However, each person must remember not only the events of his life, but also know the history of his ancestors - only then will he be able to fully realize his place in the succession of generations and better understand the meaning of his own existence. To understand oneself, to understand the surrounding life, to imagine a possible course of events - that's what history is for.
Comprehension of history is not only the acquisition of a sum of knowledge about the past, but it is always the development of historical thinking, which allows you to more clearly understand your position in society, clearly define your civic position and your attitude to ongoing events and phenomena, reveal and understand their essence and direction. True comprehension of historical knowledge is possible only with its personal comprehension, with independent search, selection and interpretation of facts.
History as a Science: Auxiliary Subjects and Functions of History
History is a science about the past of human society and its present, about the patterns of development of social life in specific forms, in spatio-temporal dimensions. The content of history is the historical process, which is revealed in the phenomena of human life, information about which has been preserved in historical monuments and sources. These phenomena are extremely diverse and relate to the development of the economy, the external and internal social life of the country, international relations, and the activities of historical figures.
The historical past is recreated by scientists on the basis of material culture, written sources or some other reason. But since the heritage of the past is huge, and human activity is very diverse, it is almost impossible to cover them entirely. Therefore, in historical science there is a specialization according to several principles:
- by temporal (chronological) coverage. In the historical process, the main eras are distinguished (traditionally: primitiveness, antiquity, the Middle Ages, modern / modern times) and their individual periods;
- by spatial (geographical) coverage. World history can be represented as the history of individual continents (the history of Africa, Latin America), regions (Balkan studies, the history of the Middle East), countries (Sinology), peoples or groups of peoples (Slavic studies);
– in various spheres of human activity (political, legal, economic, military, scientific, etc.).
In addition, historical science includes several special branches: archeology, which studies the past from material sources; ethnography, which studies living peoples and ethnic communities, their way of life and culture; source studies, which develops the theory and methodology for studying and using historical sources; historiography, which studies the formation and development of historical science (the history of history). There are also a number of special (auxiliary) historical disciplines that study certain forms and types of historical sources:
§ Paleography - an auxiliary historical discipline (a special historical and philological discipline) that studies the history of writing, the patterns of development of its graphic forms, as well as monuments of ancient writing in order to read them, determine the author, time and place of creation. Palaeography studies the evolution of the graphic forms of letters, written characters, the proportions of their constituent elements, the types and evolution of fonts, the system of abbreviations and their graphic designation, the material and tools of writing. A special branch of paleography studies the graphics of cryptography systems (cryptography).
§ Diplomatics - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies historical acts (legal documents). It explores ancient documents of a diplomatic and legal nature: charters, acts and similar texts and their originals. One of its tasks is to distinguish fake acts from real ones.
§ Genealogy - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the family relationships of people, the history of childbirth, the origin of individuals, the establishment of family ties, the compilation of generational paintings and family trees. Genealogy is linked to heraldry, diplomacy and many other historical disciplines. Since the beginning of the 21st century, in connection with scientific progress, genetic genealogy using human DNA analysis has been gaining popularity.
§ Heraldry - a special historical discipline dealing with the study of coats of arms, as well as the tradition and practice of their use. It is part of emblematics, a group of interrelated disciplines that study emblems. The difference between emblems and other emblems is that their structure, use and legal status correspond to special, historically established rules. Heraldry precisely determines what and how can be applied to the state coat of arms, family coat of arms, and so on, explains the meaning of certain figures.
§ Sphragistics - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies seals (matrices) and their impressions on various materials. Initially developed as part of diplomacy, dealing with the determination of the authenticity of documents.
§ Historical metrology - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the measures used in the past - length, area, volume, weight - in their historical development. Often units of measurement did not form a metric system, they are referred to as traditional systems of measurement. Historical metrology studies the history of the genesis and development of various measurement systems, the names of individual measures, their quantitative ratios, establishes their real values, that is, their correspondence to modern metric systems. Metrology is closely related to numismatics, since many peoples in the past had weights that coincided with monetary units and had the same name.
§ Numismatics - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the history of coinage and money circulation.
§ Public functions of numismatics: identification of numismatic cultural monuments; the study of characteristic facts, connections and processes that contribute to a deeper understanding of history and fill in the gaps in historical science.
§ Chronology - an auxiliary historical discipline that establishes the dates of historical events and documents; sequence of historical events in time; a list of any events in their time sequence.
§ Historical geography - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies history through the "prism" of geography; it is also the geography of a territory at a certain historical stage of its development. At the moment, 8 sectors of historical geography are distinguished: - historical physical geography (historical geography) - the most conservative branch, studies landscape changes; - historical political geography - studies changes in the political map, political system, routes of conquests; - historical geography of the population - studies the ethnographic and geographical features of the distribution of the population in the territories; - historical social geography - studies the relationship of society, the change of social strata; - historical cultural geography - studies the spiritual and material culture; - historical geography of interaction between society and nature - direct (human influence on nature) and reverse (nature on human); - historical economic geography - studies the development of production, industrial revolutions; historical and geographical regional studies.
§ Archiving - a scientific discipline that studies and develops theoretical, methodological and organizational issues of archiving and its history.
§ Archeology - a historical discipline that studies the historical past of mankind from material sources.
§ Ethnography - a part of historical science that studies ethnic peoples and other ethnic formations, their origin (ethnogenesis), composition, resettlement, cultural and everyday features, as well as their material and spiritual culture.
§ Historiography is an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the history of historical science. Historiography tests the correct application of the scientific method in writing a historical work, focusing on the author, his sources, the separation of facts from interpretation, as well as style, author's biases and the audience for which he wrote this work in the field of history.
§ Historical computer science - an auxiliary historical discipline that studies the methodology of using information technology in the study of the historical process, the publication of historical research and the teaching of historical disciplines, as well as in archival and museum work.
History is traditionally the basis of humanitarian education and the most important factor in the formation of people's self-awareness. It performs a number of functions, often beyond the world of science. These include:
- descriptive (narrative) function, which boils down to fixing what is happening and the primary systematization of information; cognitive (cognitive, explanatory) function, the essence of which is the understanding and explanation of historical processes and phenomena;
- prognostic (prediction of the future) and practical-recommendatory (practical-political) functions. Both involve using the lessons of the past to improve the lives of human communities in the near and distant future;
- educational (cultural and ideological) function, the function of social memory. These functions are responsible for the formation of historical consciousness, self-identification of society and the individual.
Principles and methods of historical science
The process of the formation of historical science is inextricably linked with the improvement of the methodology of history, that is, the whole complex of principles and methods within which historical research is carried out. The main principles of scientific historical research include:
- the principle of objectivity, which implies the reconstruction of historical reality based on true facts and knowledge of the objective laws of historical development. Each phenomenon must be investigated, taking into account both its positive and negative sides, regardless of the subjective attitude towards it, without distorting and without fitting the available facts to previously developed schemes;
- the principle of determinism is a scientific approach, according to which all observed phenomena are not random, but have a cause, are determined by certain prerequisites, and all reality appears as a tangle of cause-and-effect relationships;
- the principle of historicism, which requires consideration of the phenomenon under study, taking into account the specific chronological framework and the specific historical situation. At the same time, it is necessary to consider the phenomenon in development, that is, to take into account what reasons gave rise to it, how it was formed and how it changed over time. It is also necessary to study each phenomenon in conjunction with other phenomena that existed at that time and developed over time, in their interconnection and interdependence (the principle of the unity of the historical process);
- the principle of a social approach, which implies the need to take into account the interests, traditions and psychology of certain classes, estates, social strata and groups, the correlation of class interests with universal ones, a subjective moment in the practical activities of governments, parties, individuals;
- the principle of alternativeness, which allows for the possibility of multivariate historical development. Guided by it, the researcher creates models of alternative development by comparing with similar phenomena in world history, determines the degree of probability of the implementation of an event. Recognition of historical alternatives allows us to see untapped opportunities and learn lessons for the future.
The methods used in historical research can be divided into two groups: general scientific and special (private scientific). Special historical methods include:
- a concrete historical or ideographic method, the essence of which is in the description of facts, phenomena and events, without which no research is possible;
- comparative-historical method, which implies that the phenomenon is studied not in itself, but in the context of similar phenomena, separated in time and space; comparison with them makes it possible to better understand the phenomenon under study;
- historical-genetic method, which is associated with tracing the genesis, i.e. the origin and development of the phenomenon under study;
- the retrospective method consists in sequential penetration into the past in order to identify the causes of events; - the historical-typological method is associated with the classification of objects of knowledge according to a chosen feature (features) to facilitate their analysis;
- the chronological method provides for the presentation of historical material in chronological order. In addition, historical research uses the methods of other sciences that come to the aid of history within the framework of interdisciplinary interaction: linguistics, anthropology, biology, medicine, sociology, psychology, geography, geology, physics, chemistry, mathematics (statistics). A significant part of these methods is used through source studies, in the process of expanding the source base.
The Essence of the World Historical Process
The world historical process is an objective given, a sphere of social life in its historical dimension. In philosophy, there is a comprehension of historical life as a coherent, ordered integrity, the movement of which has a certain direction. The philosophy of history has its cognitive goals and objectives.
§ Knowledge of the logic of the historical process, i.e. its unity, integrity, general orientation. It is also necessary to establish the causes and factors of historical development, to discover the universal laws of history as a whole and its individual stages. Their discovery and knowledge is understood as the comprehension of the main and essential in history. History in its concreteness is always and everywhere a collection of infinitely varied and unique historical biographies of individual countries and peoples. But this does not contradict the principle of unity and integrity of the world historical process. True, in this situation, an opposite view of historical life is possible: all phenomena are considered as unique and inimitable, regularities are denied, and as a result, the unity of world history.
§ Carry out a chronological division of historical life - stages, epochs, stages. The global process is presented as an orderly one, where each stage is conditioned by the past and is important for the future. Periodization is an inevitable moment and the basis of the explanation of history. The main problem in this case is the choice of a basis that would help to highlight the features that separate one group of societies from others. For example, such grounds can be economic factors (productive forces, production relations) or non-economic factors (religion, way of thinking, political organization).
§ Identify the general form of the flow of history. This problem arises as a search for relationships between the general content of history and specific, diverse historical phenomena. It also allows you to find out the nature of the relationship between the past, present and future. This may be a linearly directed deployment, in which the times cannot repeat each other; it can be a movement in a circle or cyclic, not carrying with it any fundamental novelty; it can be a spiraling course of historical life, meaning a certain combination of linear and circular movement, and so on.
§ Discover the meaning of the historical development of mankind. The meaning of history is seen in the realization of certain principles, ideas, essences or values. Such factors build the historical life of society into an organized, orderly whole, transparent to philosophical understanding. This state is supplemented by an anthropological thesis, designed to express the purpose of human existence.
The variety of theories of the world historical process requires a certain systematization, within which several leading directions and approaches can be distinguished, for example, religious and secular, formational and civilizational.
Patterns and stages of the historical process.
To identify the patterns of the world-historical process, the concept of "type of civilizational or historical development" is used - a civilization or several civilizations with similar basic principles of economic management and organization of political power, a commonality of the fundamental foundations of mentality and historical destiny. The study of world history makes it possible to identify four types of historical development: development within the framework of the annual cycle or non-progressive type, eastern or cyclical type of development, western or progressive type of development and mixed type of development.
The first in time of occurrence is development within the framework of the annual cycle (development in a circle), which is somewhat conventionally called the type of non-progressive development, which arose simultaneously with the appearance of a modern type of man about 40 thousand years ago. At present, it has been preserved among the Indians of America, the natives of Australia and New Zealand, a number of small peoples of Siberia and the Far North, and some tribes of Central Africa. The main occupations of the people were hunting and gathering, as well as beekeeping and fishing, then agriculture and cattle breeding. There was public ownership of the means of production and social equality. The main social unit was the tribal community, which was headed by the elders. Communities united into tribes. The consciousness of ancient people was mythological. It is characterized by the unity of the rudiments of religion, philosophy, science and art. The essence of this type of development fully characterizes its name. The forms of activity of man and society change depending on the time of year and are reproduced from generation to generation. If change does occur, it will take millennia.
The second in time of occurrence is the eastern type or the type of cyclic development. It originated with the appearance of the first states in the Ancient East in 4-3 thousand BC. and continues to exist today. This type of development includes a number of ancient civilizations (Sumerian, Akkadian, ancient Egyptian, Hittite, Assyrian, etc.), civilizations of pre-Columbian America (Incas, Aztecs, Maya, Zapotecs, etc.), medieval Mongolian; modern eastern civilizations formed during the periods of the ancient world and the Middle Ages (Chinese-Confucian, Indo-Buddhist, Islamic).
The history of Russia is an integral part of world history. general and special in historical development
It is impossible to study the history of one state and understand the deep meaning of the phenomena that took place in it, without studying in the aggregate the history of other states and the entire world historical process as a whole. The history of the Russian and foreign states throughout the entire world historical process "evolves" i.e. selects the most stable forms of government that meet the needs (economic, spiritual, etc.) of people in a given specific historical period. Throughout the history of mankind, people have come up with a diverse number of forms of government, these are monarchies, parliamentary and presidential republics, mixed forms of government, etc. If we take the primitive society of any people, then we can observe that the evolution of the forms of state government in the early stages took place along the same path, with some cultural and national features inherent in this people. But at a certain stage, some states remained at the same level, while others moved forward to forms of government that corresponded to the needs of people, their people. There are many reasons for this: the development of culture, science, social relations between people, the geographical location of a particular state, etc. As an example of evolution, one can show the modern Western democratic society and the society of the peoples of Central Africa with its inherent archaic features of the structure of the state and the living conditions of people. Russia, as a part of Europe, went the way of development from the tribal system to feudal (serfdom) and until the 20th century, Russia, like many countries of Western and Eastern Europe, did not know any other form of government except as a monarchy - a form of government in which the supreme state power is partially or completely owned by one person - the monarch and, as a rule, is inherited.
World history studies and presents the entire long and difficult path that mankind has traveled from ancient times to the present day. The history of Russia is part of world history. The object of study is the process of the emergence and development of the human community in the territories that were and are now part of the Russian state. The history of Russia cannot but be at the same time Russian history or the history of the Russian people, which makes up 80% of the population of the Russian Federation. The Russian man with his character, traditions, mentality became the creator of the original Russian civilization, the main figure of Russian life and history.
The Development of Historical Science in Russia: Classical and Modern Russian Historical Science
The history of Russia as a science has its own history, and it must be known. If history as a science is a systematic depiction of the development of societies over time, then a natural question arises: when did Russian history become a science. It turns out that not so long ago and not immediately. The transformation of the history of Russia into science took place gradually.
The desire to describe the history of Russia, as S.F. Platonov well showed, first manifested itself in the compilation of ancient chronicles, then - "chronographs", "synopsis". The features of chronicles and chronographs are the content of disorderly information about events from traditions and legends. Then in the works of German scientists I. G. Bayer, G. F. Miller, A. L. Schlozer, who worked in Russia under Peter the Great and later, in the works of Russian scientists V. N. Tatishchev, M. P. Pogodin, M. M. Shcherbatova(XVIII)
However, the first integral view of the historical past of Russia was presented only at the beginning of the 19th century. N. M. Karamzin in his 12-volume work "History of the Russian State". In Russian history, he saw and illuminated as the main process - the creation of national state power, to which Russia was led by its talented figures. Among them are two main ones: Ivan III and Peter the Great (XV and early XVIII century).
After Karamzin, the famous historians were N. A. Polevoy, M. T. Kachenovsky, and N. G. Ustryalov. But the strictly scientific integrity of historical views was first expressed in our country in the 40s of the 19th century. in the works of S. M. Solovyov and K. D. Kavelin, who laid the foundations of the historical-legal school in historical science in Russia, and historical science in Russia has finally reached its maturity.
Scientists of the German historical school (XVIII - early XIX centuries) believed that human society develops as an organism, according to strict objective laws, which neither chance nor a person, no matter how brilliant, can reject. And the task of historians is to discover these laws, to arm their society with knowledge. Hence the requirement for historians: conclusions must be substantiated by facts, follow from facts. Without facts there is no science in history.
It was German scientists who, with their strict requirements, turned history from free stories, true stories - fables into a rigorous science. And this tradition of theirs was the basis of historical science in Russia. The beginning was laid by historians of the 18th century. and representatives of the historical-legal school. Later, this tradition was continued by supporters of the historical-economic school and the school of Soviet historians. Historians S. M. Solovyov and K. D. Kavelin, on the basis of facts, considered Russian history as a natural replacement of some laws of community life by others and studied the development of state forms of life in society under the influence of nature and the characteristics of tribal life.
The historical and economic school was represented by V. O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911). The development of society was considered by him as the result of the influence of socio-economic conditions, that is, not by the will of kings or other persons, but under the influence of objective conditions, first of all.
In the XX century. A school of Soviet historians has developed in Russia. They described history from the standpoint of the ideology of Marxism-Leninism and the narrow class formational approach. In recent years, the desire of our historians to cover the past from the position of a civilizational approach has been noticeable. The following stand out: the cultural-historical school and the complex, multifactorial school.
Concepts of the development of historical science.
Knowing the characteristics of each school allows you to notice the positions of their authors when reading the works. Knowledge of concepts plays the same role.
Stand out:
1. Christian;
2. Rationalist;
3. Cultural and historical concept.
Supporters of the Christian concept correlate the history of mankind with the religious (Christian idea) about the creation of the world and man by God and present the course of history as a manifestation of God's will.
In Soviet times, history books written from the standpoint of the Christian concept were not published. However, in the late 90s. such a book appeared. This is Budzilovich P.I. Russian history. In it, the preface is called: “In the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit”, here the history of Russia is divided into 4 periods:
1. Pagan (Before the Baptism of Russia);
2. From the Baptism of Russia in 988 to the church schism in the 17th century. and Peter I. Creation of Holy Russia;
3. From the split of Peter I until February 1917 "Synodal period";
The main idea of the textbook: "the Russian Orthodox monarchy, apparently, was the most perfect form of government for Russia."
The rationalistic concept is based on the ideas of the German philosophers Hegel and K. Marx. Its supporters consider history as the result not of God's will, but of rational, i.e. conscious, independent activity of people, which is based on the actions of objective laws. The task of historians is to reveal their action, to promote their knowledge by society and their consideration in life. According to Hegel, the history of mankind is the embodiment in the activities of people of the creative power of the "world mind", "world spirit", "absolute idea" that existed outside of man (like God). K. Marx - proposed a materialistic understanding of history (materialistic approach). That is - that the world is material, it consists of moving matter, which takes various forms: chemical, physical, organic, social. Humanity, human society is one of the forms of eternally moving matter. The main meaning of history, according to Marx, is the production of material goods, during which classes with different, opposing interests are formed in society: the ruling, exploiting classes, and the exploited classes of producers of material goods.
There is a constant struggle between them. The struggle between classes is the main driving force of history. And the task of historians is to reveal this class struggle.
Formational approach in historical science.
K. Marx developed the theory of socio-economic formations. The history of mankind is the history of formations:
1. Primitive communal system;
2. Slaveholding;
3. Feudal;
4. Capitalist;
5. Communist, to which mankind will come in the future.
They differ, each, in their mode of production of material goods and forms of class struggle. Formations follow one after another in a linear plan as the stages of development of society, from the lowest to the highest. On the basis of the Marxist theory of formations, a formational approach has developed in historical science.
In Russia, Marx's theory was corrected by Lenin and Stalin and was called "Marxism-Leninism". And Soviet historians were obliged to cover history only in strict accordance with the ideas of Marxism-Leninism. What Marx said, Lenin was not subject to criticism. The decisive role in society was recognized for the classes producing material goods, the poorest sections of society, and history was covered from the standpoint of these classes and sections. This led to its distortion, the spiritual culture was assigned a service role in the life of society, the role of man was underestimated.
Civilization approach in historical science.
On the basis of the cultural-historical concept and the theory of civilization, a civilizational approach has developed in historical science.
Until 1917, the historical science of Russia developed freely on the basis of all three concepts. After 1917, especially since the 1930s, when the totalitarian system in the USSR completed its formation, the Christian concept was rejected as hostile, the cultural-historical concept was banned as bourgeois, and the rationalistic one was reduced to its Marxist-Leninist branch, on the basis of which the formational approach was formed. in Soviet historical science. If in European democratic countries this concept was based on liberal-democratic ideas arising from the philosophy of Hegel, Marx and other thinkers, and contributed to the free development of historical science, then in our country this concept hindered the development of science.
In the mid 30s. The “Short Course in the History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks” was published, edited by I.V. Stalin and giving examples of the formational approach, according to which later, after the 30s, the history of Russia and world history were rewritten, generations of Soviet people were brought up, including the number of historians. All this must be taken into account when listening to people of older generations, reading works and textbooks on history published before the 1990s.
And - even from those published in the 90s. many bear the stamp of the formational approach.
Overcoming the negative values of the formational approach involves the rejection of the absolutization of its criteria, the promotion of the attention of historians of man, people, society, culture in all its forms, the recognition of the legitimacy, positive role and negative values of all types of property created by human society, and all historically emerging classes society, study and functional roles in the life of civilization; a civilizational approach to the study of history is needed.
A modern approach to the study of history is possible only if the ideas of the theory of civilizations are taken into account. At the same time, students of history should not be confused by the word "theory". The fact is that, while studying the theory of civilization, we actually consider the most common features and trends in the development of human society, i.e. actually the history of society only in the most general ideas about it. Therefore, the ideas of the theory of civilization are of methodological importance for the study of the history of Russia.
N. Ya. Danilevsky identified three stages in the development of societies into civilization:
1. ethnographic,
2. state,
3. civilizational.
There are theories of local civilizations - as large communities and their cultures that once emerged and existed in time and space, and - the theory of a universal civilization, suggesting that humanity arose as a single entity and developed accordingly.
According to Danilevsky, civilizations are “forms of the historical life of mankind” that differ in cultural and historical type, i.e., originality, originality of religious, social, everyday, industrial, political development.
Civilizations have existed for thousands of years and have reached a high degree of development. The founders gave them definitions in the light of their emergence, development and difference from the pre-civilized state of societies. P. A. Sorokin gave them a more complete and deep definition. According to Sorokin, civilizations are large cultural systems or supersystems, supranational cultural communities. They largely determine the main manifestations of socio-cultural life, the organization and functions of small groups and cultural systems, the mentality and behavior of individuals, the nature of events, trends and processes. Therefore, without the study and knowledge of civilizations, we will not be able to properly understand the nature and causes of changes in society.
The theory of common human civilizations was reflected in the book of the American scientist O. Toffler "The Third Wave". The essence of the theory: humanity is united and from a certain time, about 10 thousand years ago, began to acquire common features and trends, and since then, it has been a single civilization. In its development, 3 stages, or civilizations, are distinguished:
The first stage is an agrarian-handicraft civilization, or a traditional society. It arose 10 thousand years ago. It was based on manual labor, traditions dominated, development was slow.
The second stage is an industrial society (civilization) caused by the industrial revolution of the 18th-19th centuries. Development is accelerating.
The third stage is the information civilization caused by the information and computer revolution. It was joined by the developed capitalist countries of the West in the 1960s-1980s. The basis of development is computers and personal computers, computerization. A new quality of culture is emerging: it is based on information and technology, the intellectual, spiritual, moral potential of a person is increasing, on the basis of which a new, informational civilization is being formed. Manual labor is reduced to a minimum and will disappear in the future.
Modern discussions about the place of Russia in the world historical process
The history of Russia is part of the world and cannot be considered outside of its context. Consider the basic concepts.
According to the Marxist-Leninist point of view, ionic features do not matter. But since Marxism was a product of Western culture, its supporters and followers actually propose to consider Russia by analogy with societies belonging to Western civilization. The main thing boils down to the following: a change in socio-economic formations took place in the country, although lagging behind Europe and with significant features. However, in the second half of the 19th century, according to the supporters of this point of view, it sharply accelerated its development and almost simultaneously with the advanced European countries moved to monopoly capitalism (imperialism) and, finally, earlier than other countries, approached the transition to the highest formation - communism ( its first step is socialism).
It must be borne in mind that socialism is a social ideal and, like any ideal, it cannot be realized in practice. But even if we ignore this, then in order to accept such a concept as the main one when considering the history of Russia, it is necessary to give convincing answers to at least two questions. Why did the country, which lagged behind the European states, belonged to the second echelon, turned out to be the first in the transition to socialism?
Why is it that none of the first echelon countries, i.e. developed, did not follow Russia into socialism? With all the abundance of Marxist-Leninist literature published in thousands of copies in Soviet times, there is no convincing answer to these questions, except for allegations of the cunning of the world bourgeoisie and the betrayal of social democracy, which cannot be taken seriously. Nevertheless, supporters of this concept still exist and in considerable numbers, especially among professional social scientists of the older generation. However, this is an a priori point of view: suitable historical facts are selected for a predetermined theoretical concept.
The next point of view is to a certain extent close to the first, since it suggests considering Russia as part of Western civilization. Its supporters recognize only Western experience and apply only Western categories to Russia (excluding the Marxist concept). They believe that Russia, although lagging behind, developed in line with Western civilization. On the eve of the First World War, its development reached a high degree. However, in a country weakened by the First World War, the Bolsheviks took power, relying on the illiterate, lumpenized masses, and Russia left the civilizational highway. It established ochlocracy - the power of the crowd, which grew into totalitarianism (violence on a massive scale). Only now, according to the supporters of this concept, conditions have arisen for a return to civilization, which is understood exclusively as Western. Thus, this position is taken by those who are in favor of Russia's rapid transition to a purely Western version of development. These are, as a rule, the most radical democrats among economists, historians, and political scientists. The proposed concept is Bolshevism in reverse.
Proponents of another point of view classify Russia as an oriental-type country. They believe that attempts to include Russia in the European path of development: the adoption of Christianity, the reforms of Peter I - ended in failure. At first glance, it is very similar, especially about the tyrant - the party leader. At a second glance, one can state the presence of obvious features of the oriental type in pre-revolutionary and Soviet society. During the existence of the USSR, exclusively vertical ties functioned in society (through power structures). For example, until recently, two factories, separated only by a fence, could communicate with each other exclusively through the ministry. In the history of Russia, including the Soviet period, one can trace a cycle: a period of reforms was inevitably followed by a period of counter-reforms, a revolution was followed by a counter-revolution, and so on. However, in pre-revolutionary Russia, there was a secular state, private property, and market relations. Apparently, not everything is so simple.
R. Kipling once said: “East is East. And the West is the West, and they will never meet.” However, there is a point of view according to which the East and the West converged and they converged in Russia. The idea of a Eurasian, special essence of Russia has been present in the public mind and in theoretical developments for a long time - several centuries. P. Ya. Chaadaev wrote in 1836: “One of the saddest features of our peculiar civilization is that we are still discovering truths that have become beaten in other countries ... The fact is that we never went along with other peoples, we do not belong to any of the known families of the human race, neither to the West nor to the East, and we have no traditions of either. The sharp turn that the country made in 1917-1920 gave rise to a trend that spread among the young intelligentsia in exile: it was called "Eurasianism". For the first time, Eurasianism loudly declared itself in the early 1920s. Prince N.S. Trubetskoy, P.L. Savitsky, G.B. Frolovskiy and others, first in Sofia, then in Berlin and Prague, published several collections with characteristic titles in a row. Later, several more representatives of the emigrant intelligentsia joined this trend: the philosopher L.P. Karsavin, the historian G.V. Vernadsky, the lawyer N.N. Alekseev and some others.
The main idea of Eurasianism: Russia differs both from the West and from the East, it is a Special World - Eurasia. What arguments were given to support this thesis? The Russian nationality, which was formed under the strong influence of the Turkic and Finno-Ugric tribes, took the initiative to unite multilingual ethnic groups into a single multinational nation of Eurasians, which lives in a single state - Russia. The exclusivity, the uniqueness of Russian culture, which is Eurasian - Russian, was emphasized: “The culture of Russia is neither European culture, nor one of Asian culture, nor the sum or mechanical combination of elements of both. It must be contrasted with the cultures of Europe and Asia as a median, Eurasian culture. . Much has been written about symphony, catholicity, and the integrity of the Russian world. Thus, the ideological and religious basis of Russia stood out. The Eurasianists assigned a decisive role in this part to Orthodoxy and the Orthodox Church. While absolutizing the role of the Orthodox Church in spiritual life, they idealized the significance of the state in public life. In their concept, the state acted as the supreme master of society, having strong power, but at the same time maintaining contact with the people. Russia was considered as a closed ocean-continent. It has everything. If the whole world collapses, Russia can exist without losses alone in the whole world, the Eurasians argued.
At the same time, the Eurasianists were sharply negative towards the West, they considered Westernism alien to Russia. Along with this, the special influence on the Russian (Russian) self-consciousness of the Eastern - "Turanian" factor was emphasized, without taking into account which, according to the Eurasianists, it is impossible to understand the course of Russian history. From here came the opposition of Europe and Asia, the connection between Russia and Asia was transmitted.
Passions boiled over Eurasianism in emigration. There were supporters, but more - opponents who saw in this hobby an attempt to justify Bolshevism. Most of those who started these studies, in the late 20s. departed from Eurasianism. Agents were introduced into their ranks by the Chekist bodies of the USSR. In 1928, the newspaper "Eurasia" was published in Paris with the money of the NKVD, which led to the disintegration and discrediting of this direction. It finally died out with the outbreak of World War II.
For the Soviet people at that time, Eurasianism was a closed page. Now the works of the Eurasianists are being actively published, their ideas are being commented and developed, which were largely explained by the crisis of Western civilization, the decline in the prestige of Western values, as well as the sharp turn of Russia during the First World War away from European values. In the conditions of modern political struggle, the Eurasian concept was simplified and became an aid to the propaganda of Russian nationalism. We must agree that Russia is not reducible in its pure form to either the East or the West, it is necessary to really take into account the influence of the Eastern factor on its development. But this, perhaps, is all that can be accepted from the Eurasians. It is impossible to base the concept of Russian history on these ideas, especially in their modern modifications.
Increasingly, regardless of different points of view on the essence of Russia, the category "civilization" is used. Communists, monarchists, and liberals easily entered their ideas into this concept. We constantly come across the phrase "Russian civilization" or, more specifically, "Russian civilization". Despite the difference in positions, both liberal, and communist, and patriarchal-conservative ideas about Russian civilization proceed from the peculiarities of the Russian mentality, Russian culture, Russian Orthodoxy, since they consider Russia as an integrity. Some politicians and cultural figures of the national-patriotic direction at the word Russia literally fall into a trance, and then the concept of "Russian civilization" sounds like a spell that appeals not to reason, but to faith or even superstition. All this is far from harmless. Here lies the danger of manipulating public consciousness, in which there is no clear historical understanding of the world - the old has collapsed, the new is taking shape slowly and difficultly. It is argued that this civilization has a special spiritual basis - Orthodoxy, it is distinguished by a special form of community, collectivism - catholicity, a special attitude to economic activity, which is characterized as "non-covetousness" (i.e., lack of desire for profit). The creation of a powerful state is considered as the greatest achievement of Russian civilization. Western civilization, unlike Russian, is characterized as mundane, devoid of spirituality, consumerism and even aggressive consumerism. O. And Platonov, the modern author of several books on this subject, writes. “Russian civilization rejected the Western European concept of development as predominantly scientific, technical, material progress, a constant increase in the mass of goods and services, the possession of an increasing number of things, growing into a real consumption race, “greed for things”. The Russian worldview opposed this concept with the idea of perfecting the soul, transforming life through overcoming the sinful nature of man.
Many peoples with different civilizational orientations that were part of the state (when more, sometimes less, but always - a lot), turned Russia into a heterogeneous, segmental society. This means that there is not one (Russian) Russia, but many "Russia" in one state. At different times and in different volumes, it included natural communities (the peoples of Siberia and Northern Europe) professing paganism, enclaves of Muslim civilization (the Volga region, Kazakhstan, Central Asia, Crimea, a significant part of the Caucasus). As well as Buddhist regions (Kalmykia, Tuva, Buryatia, Khakassia), regions with a population belonging to European civilization (Finland, Poland, the Baltic states and some others). All these peoples profess values that are incapable of coalescence, synthesis, integration. They are not reducible to Russian. Muslim, Lamaist, Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, pagan and other values cannot be brought together, subordinated to Orthodoxy.
Russia does not have socio-cultural unity, integrity. Because of this, it cannot be expressed within the framework of the East-West alternative (that is, the presence of eastern and western features), it is not an independent civilizational type (Eurasia, for example). Pre-revolutionary Russia for centuries preserved and increased socio-cultural and spiritual pluralism. They tried to change the essence of Russia in Soviet times, but to no avail (this was shown by the collapse of the USSR). Even today, Russia remains a heterogeneous society in terms of civilization.
Russia-USSR cannot be regarded as a single civilization. We can talk about the civilizational characteristics of certain segments and the forms of their coexistence and interaction within the state, as well as about a certain development paradigm (or paradigms) common to the whole country, which was not constant, but changed at different stages of its history. The analysis of the material is based on the following initial principles:
Russia is a civilizationally heterogeneous society. This is a special, historically formed conglomerate of peoples belonging to different types of life, united by a powerful, centralized state with a Great Russian core.
The civilizational paradigm of the development of this complex, huge community has changed at different stages of history . Russia is geopolitically located between two powerful centers of civilizational influence - east and west, it includes peoples developing both in the western and eastern versions. This inevitably affected the choice of development paths. With sharp turns, historical whirlwinds "shifted" the country closer to the West, then closer to the East. Russia was like a "drifting society" at the crossroads of civilizational magnetic fields. In this regard, for our country, like no other, throughout history, the problem of choosing alternatives has been extremely acute. Which way to develop?
Factors of originality of Russian history and culture.
In Russian historiography, there are four factors that determined the features (backwardness, delay, originality, originality) of Russian history:
1. Natural and climatic: the life of a peasant depended on the weather and soil fertility. Unfavorable conditions had a direct impact on the type. The ruling class created rigid levers of the state mechanism aimed at withdrawing the surplus product. From here comes the centuries-old tradition of the despotic power of the autocracy - serfdom. Low productivity, dependence on natural conditions in Russia led to the stability of the communal principles of the economy. The natural and climatic factor largely determined the peculiarities of the national character of Russians: a) extreme exertion of forces for a relatively long period of time, b) collectivism, c) readiness for help up to self-sacrifice.
2. Geopolitical factor: a) a vast, sparsely populated, territory unprotected by natural barriers, b) a huge network of rivers, c) insecurity of borders, d) isolation from the seas. The geopolitical factor has determined such features of the Russian people as national tolerance, lack of nationalism, universal responsiveness.
3. Religious factor: Orthodoxy came from Byzantium. Orthodoxy is characterized by a movement for the better, the ideas of social justice, Christianity is distinguished by great freedom of inner life, collectivism is characteristic. Catholicism is from Rome, its values are in the market, wealth, the Catholics have the main features of power, domination, discipline.
4. Factor of social organization: its main elements: a) the primary socio-economic unit is a corporation (community, collective farm, etc.), and not a private entity, as in the West, b) the state is not a superstructure over society, as in the West, and the creator of society, c) the state either exists, or it is not effective, d) the state, society, the individual are not divided, but integral, e) the state relies on a corporation. 3. Lappo-Danilevsky A.S. Methodology of history. ID Territory of the Future. 2006.
4. Moiseev V.V. Russian history. Volume 1. Belgorod State Technological University. V.G. Shukhova, EBS ASV. 2013.
5. Petrovskaya I.F. For the scientific study of the history of Russia! On the methods and techniques of historical research. Petropolis. 2009. Semennikova L.I. Russia in the world community of civilizations. Textbook for universities. - Bryansk, 1999.
9. Sakharov A.N. On new approaches to the history of Russia // Questions of history. 2002.
10. Shelkovnikova N.V. History of Russia for foreigners. Amur Humanitarian-Pedagogical State University. 2010.
MODERN HISTORICAL SCIENCE: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS
MODERN HISTORICAL SCIENCE: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS
V. V. Grishin, N. S. Shilovskaya
The article is devoted to the problem of searching for historical truth. Historical science of the XX-XXI centuries. falls under the influence of ideologies and ideolologisms, which sometimes makes history sophistical and leads to the substitution of historical truth for historical opinion. Historical relativism is one of the acute problems of teaching history. Does history as a science have perspectives and what are they?
Key words: history, science, historical existence, knowledge, truth.
V. V. Grishin, N. S. Shilovskaya
The article is devoted to the problem of search of historical truth. The historical science of XX - the XX-Ith centuries gets under the influence of ideologies and the so-called ideologisms that makes history sometimes sophistical, it leads to substitution of historical truth by just a historical opinion. The historical relativity is one of the acute problems of teaching of history. Has History as science prospects and what are they? Is the question.
Keywords: history, science, historical life, cognition, truth.
Historical reflection is one of the prerogatives of man. Only if for the ancient Greek history is a pure description-recording of events, life or everyday life, then the modern European history moves away from pure descriptiveness in the direction of philosophy. In other words, history is, first of all, a comprehension of history, it is a search for the meaning of historical being, its analysis, penetration into its deep laws.
If we take modern historical science (both Russian and global in general), then its classical reflective spirit is slowly fading away. Historical inquisitiveness dies out, historical research turns out to be two-dimensional, their three-dimensional depth disappears. As a rule, history closes on the study of textual historical sources, therefore it becomes more descriptive in nature than analytical. The historian in this case turns from a researcher into a storyteller, educator and propagandist, he rather narrates about the historical past than comprehends it.
The crisis of modern historical science has many faces. Perhaps the basis for the fading of historical analytics is the departure from the conceptuality of historical research: scientific conceptuality is replaced by non-scientific eclecticism and political opportunism, which naturally results in a distortion of the truth of historical existence.
On the other hand, historical science has also been affected by the postmodern annihilation of truth, the transformation of the latter from the desired goal of epistemological attempts into a word in a text, into a textual reality. Historical science thereby loses not only the spirit of academicism, but sometimes, however paradoxical it may sound, its own scientific character. The truth of history is also supplanted by attachment
stim to "historical fashion": let's say there is a "fashion" for a certain interpretation of the revolution of 1917 or the Great Patriotic War. The pages of history are thus rewritten and often become completely unrecognizable. Historical knowledge diverges from the reality of historical existence, and thus historical science is not just experiencing a crisis, it is given to the will of the masses, the mass dictates the truth of history.
Now let's narrow down the crisis phenomena in historical science in general to the framework of domestic science, more specifically, Soviet-post-Soviet. History as a science always has the danger of an alliance with ideology, which was precisely what Soviet history sinned. The ideologization of historical science may be the result of the degeneration of its philosophical component, its transformation into an ideological one, which, for example, happened to the philosophy of Marxism. With the ideologization of historical science, historical facts are also distorted, but already ideologically, historical reality is rewritten and adjusted to the ideology (liberal, Marxist national or any other). The meaning of history thus turns out to be mediated by ideology, the source base is adjusted to the ideological message. Ideologized history is characterized not by the desire for the essence of the historical, but by fitting the historical to the ideology. The historian-ideologist proceeds not from the primacy of historical reality, but from the primacy of his own ideology. Historical being in such a case becomes a servant of ideology, and scientific discussion is replaced by the struggle of ideologies.
If in Soviet times the whole history was biased in a Marxist way and class ideologized, then post-Soviet historical science is moving away from the ideological Historical mainstream, but acquiring new problems. Today in historical science it is tolerant
There are polarity concepts: postmodernism, constructivism, historical eclecticism or neo-Marxism. Among modern professional historians, therefore, there is not even a hint of any agreement. It turns out that Russian history, leaving Marxism, threw off not just the fetters of ideology. History has not arrived at historical truth, it degenerates into deconstruction, separate facts are snatched out of the historical process and mechanically combined with others. The element of connection is an arbitrary vision of history, which is based on the subjective preferences of the historian. The result is a mosaic of historical existence, composed of both historical facts and pseudo-facts. Eclecticism becomes dominant in the historical consciousness.
The identified problems of historical science affect the concept of teaching history both in secondary and higher educational institutions. Postmodern relativism, reductionism and eclecticism of historical and scientific thinking is manifested in the multivariance of history textbooks or the lack of a general assessment of the historical path of Russia. Today, a new generation of people is growing up, brought up on sophistical history. For example, modern Brazilian schoolchildren are taught that in World War II, they say, there was no winner at all, the USSR did not win the war, which is an unacceptable distortion of historical reality.
So, in historical thinking, a situation arose that was once described by Kant, who tried to give an analyst of pure reason: historical thinking falls into antinomies (for example, the characterization of Stalin as an outstanding political figure and as the organizer of the "great terror"). Perhaps a way out of the antinomies of historical consciousness should be sought in the Kantian direction, but by overcoming the Kantian gap between theoretical reason and morality. In the Kantian way (which is represented in the philosophy of history of the neo-Kantians of the Baden school), historical events are considered exclusively through the prism of practical reason (for the Badenians, these are absolute values). Thus, historical events become axiologically two-tone black and white, and historical truth in its classical (Aristotelian) understanding is replaced by the truth of good and evil. Meanwhile, historical truth cannot be axiological. Historical truth is, first of all, the correspondence of historical knowledge to historical reality, and only after that does historical knowledge give events an axiological assessment.
Historical Science and the Postmodern Worldview
In the European public consciousness in the last third of the twentieth century. postmodernist ideas begin to dominate, which are characterized primarily by overcriticism of rationalism, the rejection of absolute truth and the meaning of history as a whole. In historical science, postmodern
Sodernist trends lead to the fact that the question of objective truth is replaced by the question of understanding. Modern historical analytics is often reduced to turning to written sources, whether they are historical chronicles or literary works. The postmodernist historian H. White tried to prove that historical description, or narrative, is subject not to the logic of historical development, but to the logic of literary genres, from drama to comedy. History will thereby be replaced by literature, and facts by the historian's frame of mind. Hence the rejection of objective truth and historical reality as such. It turns out that the historian can cognize historical reality as a product of subjective consciousness, that is, as a literary text.
It turns out that in postmodern historical science, hermeneutics and psychology were synthesized into a method of historical research. This may give interesting results for history, but only as a special case. Only with a systematic approach can these results take their place in the overall picture of historical existence, which postmodernist historians are not capable of. The humanistic project voiced by Pico della Mirandola, which emphasized the relationship of natural patterns with the unity of the human race, is rejected by postmodernism. Thus, the meaning of history and history as a process, movement and development lose their meaning.
Appreciating what you have now, or not appreciating anything - this is, according to postmodernism, the only truth. Postmodernism expands the concept of Dasein, it becomes mobile, and this mobility depends on the strength of the author's creativity. Historian Hans Kellner said of the influence of Erich Auerbach and Michel Foucault on the worldview of the postmodern era: "Their version of humanism says that people's lives are determined by their literary and linguistic capabilities."
Philistine and scientific in history
Another problem of modern historical science is the blurring of the demarcation line between history as a science and the philistine opinion about history: today the philistine-historical opinion penetrates into what has always been scientific-historical, destroys the core of the scientific nature of history. Thus, pseudo-historical works are published in huge editions, in which historical reality is replaced by fairy tales about the suffering people and Stalin as their intercessor, about our eternal external enemies, etc. The Polish historian E. Topolsky notes that there are two types of readers of historical texts: semantic (that is, naive, perceiving the text in a literal sense) and semiotic (that is, approaching the text critically). It is naive readers-consumers who today sometimes dictate the direction in historical science. To please such readers, historical facts are hushed up and historical reality is distorted, which is done, as a rule, by populist historians.
The philistine approach to history is characterized by superficiality and uncriticality, a departure from objective truth, but at the same time the conviction that there is one's own position, claiming to be true, regarding the reality of historical existence. Modern media easily manipulate the historical consciousness of such an ingenuous, poorly educated layman, introducing distorted historical facts into it and leading a person even further away from the truth of history.
The layman, who supposedly tries to think historically, receives "historical knowledge" from populist mass literature, where, as a rule, the historical past is glorified, which to some extent compensates for the inferiority of modernity and gives hope for the embodiment of historical legend in the reality of modernity (for example, the legend of equality and brotherhood that allegedly existed in the USSR, and the return to national brotherhood in modern Russia).
Playing along with such views, some politicians gain popularity among the people. For the sake of their own legitimacy, they hide behind the slogan "the people are always right." Therefore, there is always a threat that such a “popular” public consciousness will absorb the historically scientific consciousness, like the general will of J.-J. Rousseau absorbs individual will. Philistine opinion interferes with scientific truth.
Since at the philistine level the history of Russia is viewed in a heroic context, and its negative aspects are viewed as a conspiracy, modernity also appears as an absolutely negative process in which the scenario of an enemy conspiracy is visible. It is highly likely that in this situation new ideologies will emerge based on the mythologems of Russian history. For example, the dream of the revival of Holy Russia in modern conditions. Historical consciousness formed in this way can influence the vigorous activity of a person. Instead of solving the problems of the present, responding to the challenge of history, a person spends his energy on creating political organizations that act in line with the fight against the enemy environment.
History is not just a social science, but also a guarantor of social development, the guardians of which are professional historians. It is professional knowledge about the historical process that constitutes the core of historical consciousness. They form a historical paradigm that acquires an official status. This paradigm is transferred to the educational system and is the basis for the formation of the historical thinking of the population as a whole. Therefore, Franklin Ankersmit's demand to historians is legitimate: they "should always be aware that they, like writers, have a cultural responsibility, and therefore their language must be understandable and readable for all those interested in history" .
History Perspectives
With the sometimes extreme subjectivism and eclecticism of modern historical science, today, however, the classical historical paradigm of thinking survives, which does not at all claim to be postmodern literary or constructing the reality of the past. The intention of the classical approach to history is that the historian first of all stands on "historical ground". The category of historical being is fundamental for a historian of the classical type, and its essence and regularities are the goal of historical science.
Works appear in modern historical science that try to lead historical science away from the descending line of development. Such an attempt, for example, is the historical study by O. M. Medushevsky “Theory and Methodology of Cognitive History”. The book was discussed on the pages of the Russian History magazine, where its positive aspects were noted. “The theory and methodology of cognitive history,” noted, for example, B. S. Ilizarov, “is a work that raises the most profound questions of historical knowledge ... The concept of a “thing” is very convincingly introduced into the concept - a historical source as a product of purposeful human activity, studying which, of course, one can reach the true universals of ideas about a person. Our historical picture can change and, in this sense, be accessible to various interpretations, but source study is a rigorous science, since the criteria for evidence-based and accurate knowledge are unchanged. It is these categories that the concept presented in this book advocates. From these positions, it is advisable to address not only questions of a proper epistemological nature, but also the problems of ethics - good and evil, the value choice of each era. O. M. Medushevskaya noted the need to analyze historical texts more deeply. So, when studying chronicles, one must not only answer the question of what this or that text says, but also what and why the author is silent. O. M. Medushevskaya, on the one hand, returns historical science to philosophical appeal, which gives it (science) depth of analysis, theoreticality and conceptuality. On the other hand, strict reliance on historical sources does not allow the growth of numerous historical quasi-interpretations. Historical science acquires accuracy, objectivity, it does not go beyond the actual materiality and eventfulness of the course of history.
LIST OF SOURCES AND LITERATURE
1. Domanska E. Philosophy of history after modernism. M.: Kanon+, 2010. - 400 p.
2. Round table on the book by O. M. Medushevsky "Theory and Methodology of Cognitive History" // Russian History. - 2010. - No. 1.
Two heads and six legs; four walk, and two lie still
Self-esteem - what is it: concept, structure, types and levels
Cassandra's Path, or Pasta Adventures War on Earth and Underground