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

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

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

The rules and procedures necessary for conducting research are also developed (research methodology) and certain tools and tools are used (research technique) (5 - 183).

"Historical-genetic method is one of the most common in historical research. Its essence lies in the consistent disclosure of the properties, functions and changes of the studied reality in the process of its historical movement, which allows you to get as close as possible to reproducing the real history of the object. This object is reflected in the most concrete form. Cognition goes ... sequentially from the individual to the special, and then to the general and universal. By its logical nature, the historical-genetic method is analytical-inductive, and by the form of expressing information about the reality under study, it is descriptive” (5-184).

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

The limitations of this method lie in the lack of attention to statics, “i.e. to fixing a certain temporal given of historical phenomena and processes, the danger of relativism may arise” (5-184). In addition, he "gravitates toward descriptiveness, factography and empiricism" (5-185). “Finally, the historical genetic method, for all its antiquity and breadth of application, does not have a developed and clear logic and conceptual apparatus. Therefore, his methodology, and hence his technique, are vague and indefinite, which makes it difficult to compare and bring together the results of individual studies ”(5-186).

idiographic (gr.Idios- "special", "unusual" andgrapho- "writing") the method was proposed by G. Rickert as the main method of history (1 - 388). “In contrast to him in natural science, he called nomothetic a method that allows laws to be established and generalizations to be made. G. Rickert reduced the essence of the "idiographic" method to the description of individual features, unique and exceptional features of historical facts, which are formed by a historian on the basis of their "reference to value". In his opinion, history individualizes events, highlighting them from an infinite set of so-called. "historical individual", which meant both the nation and the state, a separate historical personality.

Based on the idiographic method, the method is applied ideographic(from “idea” and Greek “grapho” - I write) a way to unambiguously record concepts and their relationships using signs, or descriptive method. The idea of ​​the ideographic method goes back to Lullio and Leibniz (24-206)

The historical genetic method is close to the ideographic method ... especially when it is used at the first stage of historical research, when information is extracted from sources, their systematization and processing. Then the researcher's attention is focused on individual historical facts and phenomena, on their description, as opposed to revealing the features of development" (7 - 174).

cognitive functions comparative historical method: - selection of signs in phenomena of a different order, their comparison, comparison; - clarification of the historical sequence of the genetic connection of phenomena, the establishment of their genus-species relationships and relationships in the process of development, the establishment of differences in phenomena; - generalization, construction of a typology of social processes and phenomena. Thus, this method is wider and more meaningful than comparisons and analogies. The latter do not act as a special method of this science. They can be applied in history, as in other areas of knowledge, and regardless of the comparative historical method (3 - 103,104).

“The logical basis of the historical-comparative method in the case when the similarity of entities is established is analogy.Analogy - This is a general scientific method of cognition, which consists in the fact that, on the basis of the similarity of some features of the compared objects, a conclusion is made about the similarity of other features. It is clear that in this case the circle famous features of the object (phenomenon) with which the comparison is made should be wider than that of the object under study” (5 – 187).

“In general, the historical-comparative method has broad cognitive capabilities. Firstly, it allows revealing the essence of the studied phenomena in those cases when it is not obvious, on the basis of the available facts; to identify the general and repetitive, necessary and natural, on the one hand, and qualitatively different, on the other. This fills in the gaps and completes the study. Secondly, the historical-comparative method makes it possible to go beyond the phenomena under study and, on the basis of analogies, to come to broad historical generalizations and parallels. Thirdly, it allows the use of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method” (5 – 187,188).

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

It is possible to compare objects and phenomena both of the same type and of different types, which are at the same and at different stages of development. But in one case, the essence will be revealed on the basis of identifying similarities, in the other - differences. Compliance with these conditions of historical comparisons essentially means the consistent application of the principle of historicism” (5-188).

“Identification of the significance of the features on the basis of which a historical-comparative analysis should be carried out, as well as the typology and stages of the compared phenomena most often requires special research efforts and the use of other general historical methods, primarily historical-typological and historical-systemic. In combination with these methods, the historical-comparative method is a powerful tool in historical research. But this method, of course, has a certain range of the most effective action. This is, first of all, the study of socio-historical development in a wide spatial and temporal aspect, as well as those less broad phenomena and processes, the essence of which cannot be revealed through direct analysis due to their complexity, inconsistency and incompleteness, as well as gaps in specific historical data. "(5 - 189).

“The historical-comparative method is inherent in a certain limitation, one should also keep in mind the difficulties of its application. This method as a whole is not aimed at revealing the reality in question. Through it, first of all, the root essence of reality in all its diversity, and not its specific specificity, is known. It is difficult to apply the historical-comparative method in studying the dynamics of social processes. The formal application of the historical-comparative method is fraught with erroneous conclusions and observations…” (5 – 189, 190).

Historical-typological method.“Both the identification of the general in the spatio-singular, and the isolation of the stadial-homogeneous in the continuous-temporal require special cognitive means. Such a tool is the method of historical-typological analysis. Typologization as a method of scientific knowledge aims to split (order) a set of objects or phenomena into qualitatively defined types (classes) based on their common essential features ... Typologization .., being a type of classification in form, is a method essential analysis (5 - 191).

“... Revealing the qualitative certainty of the considered set of objects and phenomena is necessary to identify the types that form this set, and knowledge of the essential-content nature of types is an indispensable condition for determining those basic features that are inherent in these types and which can be the basis for a specific typological analysis, i.e. . to reveal the typological structure of the reality under study” (5-193).

The principles of the typological method can be effectively applied “only on the basis of a deductive approach. It consists in the fact that the corresponding types are distinguished on the basis of a theoretical essential-content analysis of the considered set of objects. The result of the analysis should be not only the identification of qualitatively different types, but also the identification of those specific features that characterize their qualitative certainty. This creates the possibility of assigning each individual object to one type or another” (5-193).

The selection of specific features for typology can be multivariate. “... This dictates the need to use in typology as a combined deductive-inductive, and actually inductive approach. essence deductive-inductive approach lies in the fact that the types of objects are determined on the basis of an essential-content analysis of the phenomena under consideration, and those essential features that are inherent in them - by analyzing empirical data about these objects "(5-194).

« Inductive the approach differs in that here both the identification of types and the identification of their most characteristic features are based on an analysis of empirical data. One has to go this way in cases where the manifestations of the individual in the particular and the particular in the general are diverse and unstable” (5-195).

“From the cognitive point of view, such typification is most effective, which allows not only to single out the corresponding types, but also to establish both the degree of belonging of objects to these types and the measure of their similarity with other types. This requires methods of multidimensional typology” (5–196,197).

Its application brings the greatest scientific effect in the study of homogeneous phenomena and processes, although the scope of the method is not limited to them. In the study of both homogeneous and heterogeneous types, it is equally important that the objects under study be commensurable in terms of the main fact for this typification, in terms of the most characteristic features that underlie historical typology (for example: type revolution ...) (3-110).

Historical-system method based on a systematic approach. “The objective basis of the systematic approach and method of scientific knowledge…is the unity in the socio-historical development…of the individual (individual), special and general. This unity is real and concrete and appears in socio-historical systems. miscellaneous level (5-197.198).

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

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

Finally historical process in its time span, it has qualitatively different stages or stages, which include a certain set of events and situations that make up subsystems in the general dynamic system of social development” (5-198).

“The systemic nature of socio-historical development means that all events, situations and processes of this development are not only causally determined and have a causal relationship, but also functionally related. Functional connections ... seem to overlap the causal connections, on the one hand, and are complex, on the other. On this basis, it is believed that in scientific knowledge, not a causal, but ... a structural-functional explanation should be of decisive importance ”(5-198,199).

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

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

From the point of view of specific content, the solution of this problem is reduced to identifying system-forming (systemic) signs, inherent in the components of the selected system (5 - 199, 200).

“After identifying the relevant system, its analysis as such follows. Central here is structural analysis, i.e. identification of the nature of the relationship between the components of the system and their properties ... the result of structural and system analysis will be knowledge about the system as such. This knowledge, ..., has empirical character, because they by themselves do not reveal the essential nature of the revealed structure. The transfer of the acquired knowledge to the theoretical level requires the identification of the functions of this system in the hierarchy of systems, where it appears as a subsystem. This task is solved functional analysis, revealing the interaction of the system under study with higher-level systems.

Only a combination of structural and functional analysis makes it possible to cognize the essential-content nature of the system in all its depth” (5-200). “...System-functional analysis makes it possible to identify which properties of the environment, i.e. systems of a higher level, including the system under study as one of the subsystems, determine the essential-content nature of this system” (5-200).

“... The ideal option would be such an approach in which the reality under study is analyzed at all its system levels and taking into account all the scales of the system components. But this approach can not always be implemented. Therefore, a reasonable selection of analysis options is necessary in accordance with the research task set” (5-200-201).

The disadvantage of this method is that it is used only for synchronous analysis, which is fraught with non-disclosure of the development process. Another drawback is the danger of "excessive abstraction - formalization of the reality under study ..." (5-205).

retrospective method.“A distinctive feature of this method is the direction from the present to the past, from the effect to the cause. In its content, the retrospective method acts, first of all, as a reconstruction technique that allows synthesizing and correcting knowledge about the general nature of the development of phenomena. The position of K. Marx “human anatomy is the key to monkey anatomy” expresses the essence of retrospective knowledge of social reality” (3-106).

"Reception retrospective knowledge consists in sequential penetration into the past in order to identify the cause of a given event. In this case, we are talking about the root cause, directly related to this event, and not about its distant historical roots. Retro-analysis shows, for example, that the root cause of domestic bureaucracy lies in the Soviet party-state structure, although they tried to find it in Nikolaev Russia, and in the Petrine reforms, and in the bureaucracy of the Muscovite kingdom. If in retrospection the path of knowledge is a movement from the present to the past, then in the construction of a historical explanation it is from the past to the present in accordance with the principle of diachrony” (7-184, 185).

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

The first three of them are quite easy to understand. "The diachronic method characteristic of structural-diachronic research, which is a special type of research activity, when the task of identifying the features of the construction in time of processes of various nature is solved. Its specificity is revealed through comparison with the synchronistic approach. Terms " diachrony"(diversity) and "synchrony” (simultaneity), introduced into linguistics by the Swiss linguist F. de Saussure, characterizes the sequence of development of historical phenomena in a certain area of ​​reality (diachrony) and the state of these phenomena at a certain point in time (synchrony).

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

There are several forms of this research:

elementary structural-diachronic analysis, which is aimed at studying the duration of processes, the frequency of various phenomena, the duration of pauses between them, etc.; it gives an idea of ​​the most important characteristics of the process;

in-depth structural-diachronic analysis aimed at revealing the internal temporal structure of the process, highlighting its stages, phases and events; in history it is used in the reconstruction of the most significant processes and phenomena; ...

extended structural-diachronic analysis, which includes the previous forms of analysis as intermediate stages and consists in revealing the dynamics of individual subsystems against the background of the development of systems” (7 - 182, 183).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. V. Lubsky

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

Literature:

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

Finding reliable information and obtaining new historical knowledge allows methods the study of history. As you know, any process of cognition, including the cognition of history, consists of three components: the object of historical cognition, the researcher and the method of cognition.

In order to develop an objective picture of the historical process, historical science must rely on a certain methodology that would allow ordering all the material accumulated by researchers.

Methodology(from ancient Greek methodos - the path of research and logos - teaching) history is a theory of knowledge, including the doctrine of the structure, logical organization, principles and means of obtaining historical knowledge. It develops the conceptual framework of science, general methods and standards for obtaining knowledge about the past, is engaged in the systematization and interpretation of the data obtained in order to clarify the essence of the historical process and reconstruct it in all concreteness and integrity. However, in historical science, as in any other science, there is no single methodology: differences in worldview, in understanding the nature of social development lead to the use of various methodological methods of research. In addition, the methodology itself is constantly in development, replenished with more and more new methods of historical knowledge.

Under methods historical research should be understood as ways of studying historical patterns through their specific manifestations - historical facts, ways of extracting new knowledge from facts.

Methods and principles

In science, there are three types of methods:

Philosophical (basic) - empirical and theoretical, observation and experiment, selection and generalization, abstraction and concretization, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, etc.

General scientific - descriptive, comparative, comparative-historical, structural, typological, structural-typological, systemic,

Special (concrete scientific) - reconstruction, historical-genetic, phenomenological (the study of historical phenomena, what is given in the sensual and mental intuition of a person), hermeneutic (the art and theory of text interpretation), etc.

The following methods are widely used by modern researchers:

historical method - this is the way, the mode of action by which the researcher acquires new historical knowledge.

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

The most common in historical research is historical genetic method. Its essence is reduced to the consistent disclosure of the properties and functions of the object under study in the process of its change. When using this method, knowledge goes from the individual to the special, and then to the general and universal. The advantage and disadvantage of this method at the same time is that when it is used, the individual characteristics of the researcher appear more clearly than in other cases. One of its weaknesses can be considered that an excessive desire to detail various aspects of the problem under study can lead to an unfair exaggeration of insignificant elements and smoothing out the most important ones. Such a disproportion will lead to an erroneous idea of ​​the essence of the process, event or phenomenon being studied.

Historical comparative method. The objective basis for its use is that socio-historical development is a repetitive, internally conditioned, natural process. Many events that took place at different times and on different scales are in many ways similar, in many ways different from each other. Therefore, comparing them, it becomes possible to explain the content of the facts and phenomena under consideration. This is the main cognitive significance of the historical-comparative method.

The right to exist as an independent method has historical-typological method. Typology (classification) serves to organize historical phenomena, events, objects in the form of qualitatively defined types (classes) based on their common features and differences. For example, studying the history of the Second World War, a historian may raise the question of the balance of power between the Nazi and anti-Hitler coalitions. In this case, the opposing sides can be conditionally divided into two groups. Then the sides of each of the groups will differ in only one feature - the attitude towards the allies or enemies of Germany. In other respects, they can differ significantly. In particular, the anti-Hitler coalition will include socialist countries and capitalist countries (more than 50 states by the end of the war). But this is a simple classification that does not give a sufficiently complete picture of the contribution of these countries to the overall victory, but rather, on the contrary, is capable of developing an erroneous knowledge about the role of these states in the war. If the task is to identify the role of each state in carrying out successful operations, destroying enemy manpower and equipment, liberating occupied territories, and so on, then the states of the anti-Hitler coalition corresponding to these indicators will be a typical grouping, and the study procedure itself will be typology.

In the current conditions, when historical research is increasingly characterized by a holistic coverage of history, it is increasingly used historical-systemic method, that is, the method by which the unity of events and phenomena in socio-historical development is studied. For example, considering the history of Russia not as some kind of independent process, but as a result of interaction with other states in the form of one of the elements in the development of the history of the entire civilization.

In addition, the following methods are widely used;

The dialectical method, which requires all phenomena and events to be considered in their development and in connection with other phenomena and events;

Chronological method, the essence of which is that events are presented strictly in temporal (chronological) order;

The problem-chronological method, which explores certain aspects (problems) in the life of society (state) in their strictly historical-chronological order;

Chronological-problematic method, in which the study of history is carried out by periods or eras, and within them - by problems;

The synchronous method is used less frequently; with its help, you can establish a connection between individual phenomena and processes occurring at the same time, but in different parts of the country or outside it.

periodization method;

Retrospective;

Statistical;

sociological method. research, which is taken from sociology and is used to study and research modern problems

Structural-functional method. Its essence lies in the decomposition of the object under study into its constituent parts and the identification of internal connection, conditionality, the relationship between them.

In addition, general scientific methods of cognition are used in historical research: analysis, synthesis, extrapolation, as well as mathematical, statistical, retrospective, system-structural, etc. These methods complement each other.

It is important to consider that these and other existing methods are used in combination with each other, complementing one another. The use of any one method in the process of historical knowledge only removes the researcher from objectivity.

Principles for the Study of Historical Facts

Historical research is carried out on the basis of certain principles. Under principles It is customary to understand the basic, initial position of any theory, doctrine, science, worldview. The principles are based on the objective laws of social historical development. The most important principles of historical research are: the principle of historicism, the principle of objectivity, the principle of a space-time approach to the event under study.

The main scientific principles are as follows:

The principle of historicism implies the need to evaluate historical processes not from the standpoint of today's experience, but taking into account the specific historical situation. It requires the researcher to take into account the level of theoretical knowledge of the participants in a particular historical process, their social consciousness, practical experience, opportunities and means for making optimal decisions. It is impossible to consider an event or a person simultaneously or abstractly, outside of time positions.

The principle of historicism is closely related to the principle of objectivity t

The principle of objectivity involves reliance on the facts in their true content, not distorted and not adjusted to the scheme. This principle requires considering each phenomenon in its versatility and inconsistency, in the aggregate of both positive and negative sides. The main thing in ensuring the principle of objectivity is the personality of the historian: his theoretical views, the culture of methodology, professional skill and honesty. This principle requires the scientific study and coverage of each phenomenon or event in its entirety, in the aggregate of their positive and negative sides. Finding the truth for a real scientist is more expensive than party, class and other interests.

Principle space-time approach to the analysis of the processes of social development suggests that outside the categories of social space and time as forms of social being it is not possible to characterize social development itself. This means that the same laws of social development cannot be applied to different historical epochs. With a change in specific historical conditions, there may be changes in the form of manifestation of the law, an expansion or narrowing of the scope of its action (as, for example, happened with the evolution of the law of class struggle.

The principle of social approach involves consideration of historical and economic processes, taking into account the social interests of various segments of the population, various forms of their manifestation in society. This principle (it is also called the principle of a class, party approach) obliges to correlate the interests of class and narrow groups with universal interests, taking into account the subjective aspect of the practical activities of governments, parties, and individuals.

The principle of alternativeness determines the degree of probability of the implementation of an event, phenomenon, process based on an analysis of objective realities and possibilities. Recognition of historical alternativeness allows us to re-evaluate the path of each country, to see the unused opportunities of the process, to learn lessons for the future.

Methodological concepts of the historical process.

History is one of the oldest sciences, it is about 2500 years old. During this time, many conceptual approaches to the study of the historical past of mankind have developed and functioned in historical science. For a long time it was dominated by subjectivist and objectively idealistic methodologies.

From the standpoint of subjectivism, the historical process was explained by the actions of prominent historical figures: Caesars, shahs, kings, emperors, generals, etc. According to this approach, their talented actions or, conversely, mistakes and inaction, led to certain historical events, the totality and interconnection of which determined the course of the historical process.

The objectively idealistic concept assigned a decisive role in the historical process to the manifestation of superhuman forces: the Divine Will, Providence, the Absolute Idea, the World Spirit, etc. With this interpretation, the historical process acquired a strictly purposeful and orderly character. Under the influence of these superhuman forces, society allegedly moved towards a predetermined goal. People, individual historical figures acted only as a means, an instrument in the hands of these faceless forces.

An attempt to put the methodology of historical research on a scientific basis was first undertaken by the German thinker K. Marx. He formulated concept of materialistic understanding of history based on 4 main principles:

The unity of mankind, and, consequently, the unity of the historical process;

Historical patterns, i.e. recognition of the action in the historical process of the general stable laws of social development;

Determinism - recognition of the existence of causal relationships and dependencies in the historical process;

Progress, i.e. progressive development of society, rising to higher and higher levels of its development.

The Marxist materialist explanation of history is based on formational approach to the historical process. Marx believed that if humanity as a whole develops naturally, progressively, then each of its parts must go through all the stages of this development. These stages in the Marxist theory of knowledge are called socio-economic formations. The concept of "socio-economic formation" is the key in Marxism in explaining the driving forces of the historical process and the periodization of history.

basis socio-economic formation and, according to Marx, is this or that mode of production. It is characterized by the level of development of the productive forces of society and the nature of production relations corresponding to this level. The totality of production relations and modes of production constitute the economic basis of the social formation, over which all other relations in society (political, legal, ideological, religious, etc.) are built on and depend on, as well as state and public institutions, science, culture, morality, morality, etc. Thus, the concept of socio-economic formation includes all the diversity of the life of society at one stage or another of its development. The economic basis determines the qualitative feature of a given formation, and the superstructure generated by it characterizes the uniqueness of the social and spiritual life of the people of this formation.

From point of view formational approach, The human community in its historical development goes through five main stages (formations):

primitive communal,

slaveholding,

feudal

capitalist and

communist (socialism is the first phase of the communist formation). The transition from one formation to another is carried out on the basis of social revolution. The economic basis of the social revolution is the conflict between the productive forces of society that have reached a new, higher level and the outdated system of production relations.

In the political sphere, this conflict manifests itself in the growth of irreconcilable, antagonistic contradictions in society, in the sharpening of the class struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed. Social conflict is resolved by revolution, which brings a new class to political power. In accordance with the objective laws of development, this class forms a new economic basis and the political superstructure of society. Thus, according to the Marxist-Leninist theory, a new socio-economic formation is being formed.

At first glance, this concept creates a clear model of the entire historical development of society. The history of mankind appears before us as an objective, natural, progressive process. However, the formational approach to the knowledge of the history of social development is not without significant shortcomings.

First, it assumes the unilinear nature of historical development. The specific experience of the development of individual countries and regions shows that not all of them fit into the rigid framework of the five socio-economic formations. The formational approach, therefore, does not reflect the diversity and multivariance of historical development. It lacks a space-time approach to the analysis of social development processes.

Secondly, the formational approach strictly connects all changes in society with the economic basis, economic relations. Considering the historical process from the standpoint of determinism, i.e. attaching decisive importance in explaining historical phenomena to objective, non-personal factors, such an approach assigns a secondary role to the main subject of history - man. Thus, the human factor is ignored, the personal content of the historical process is belittled, and with it the spiritual factors of historical development.

Thirdly, the formational approach absolutizes the role of conflict relations in society, attaches decisive importance to class struggle and violence in progressive historical development. However, as the historical experience of the last fifty years shows, in many countries and regions the manifestation of these "locomotives of history" is limited. In the post-war period in Western Europe, for example, a reformist modernization of social structures is carried out. While not eliminating the inequality between labor and capital, it nevertheless significantly raised the living standards of wage workers and sharply reduced the intensity of the class struggle.

Fourthly, the formational approach is associated with elements of social utopianism and even providentialism (religious and philosophical view, according to which the development of human society, the sources of its movement and the goal are determined by mysterious, external forces in relation to the historical process - Providence, God). The formational concept based on the law of "denial of negation" suggests the inevitability of the development of the historical process from primitive communism (classless primitive communal socio-economic formation) through class (slave-owning, feudal and capitalist) formations to scientific communism (classless communist formation). The inevitability of the onset of the communist era, the "welfare society" runs like a red thread throughout the entire Marxist theory and ideology. The utopian nature of these postulates has been fully revealed in recent decades in the Soviet Union and other countries of the so-called. socialist system.

In modern historical science, the formational methodological concept is opposed by the methodology civilizational approach to the development of human society. The civilizational approach allows scientists to get away from the one-dimensional picture of the world, to take into account the uniqueness of the ways of development of individual regions, countries and peoples.

The concept of "civilization" has become widely established in modern Western historiography, politics, and philosophy. The most prominent representatives of the civilizational concept of social development among Western researchers are M. Weber, A. Toynbee, O. Spengler and a number of other prominent scientists.

However, Soviet social science for many decades, in describing the course of the world historical process, placed the main emphasis on the theory of socio-economic formations, because the cornerstone of this theory is the justification for the revolutionary replacement of capitalism by socialism. And only in the late 80's - early 90's. In the domestic scientific literature, the shortcomings of the rigid five-term approach to history began to be revealed. The requirement to supplement the formational approach with the civilizational one sounded like an imperative.

The civilizational approach to the historical process, social phenomena has a number of serious advantages over the formational one:

First, its methodological principles are applicable to the history of any country or group of countries and to any historical time. It is focused on the knowledge of the history of society, taking into account the specifics of individual countries and regions, and, to a certain extent, is universal in nature;

Secondly, the focus on taking into account the specifics of individual human communities makes it possible to view history as a multilinear and multivariate process;

Thirdly, the civilizational approach does not reject, but, on the contrary, assumes the integrity, unity of human history. From the point of view of this approach, individual civilizations as integral systems that include various elements (economic, political, social, science, culture, religion, etc.) are comparable with each other. This makes it possible to widely use the comparative-historical method of research. As a result of this approach, the history of individual countries, peoples, regions is not considered on its own, in comparison with the history of other countries, peoples, regions, civilizations. This makes it possible to better understand historical processes, to identify the features of the development of individual countries;

Fourthly, the definition of clear criteria for the development of the world community allows researchers to fully assess the level of development of certain countries and regions, their contribution to the development of world civilization;

Fifth, in contrast to the formational approach, where the dominant role belongs to economic factors, the formational approach assigns a proper place in the historical process to spiritual, moral and intellectual human factors. Therefore, when characterizing a particular civilization, such factors as religion, culture, and the mentality of the people play an important role.

However, the civilizational approach also contains a number of significant flaws. This, first of all, refers to the amorphousness of the criteria for determining the types of civilization. It is known that in the development of some civilizations, the economic principle is decisive, others - political, third - religious, fourth - cultural. Particularly great difficulties arise in assessing the type of civilization, when the mentality of society is its most important essential beginning.

In addition, in the civilizational methodology, the problems of the driving forces of the historical process, the direction and meaning of historical development are not clearly developed.

It is also important to emphasize that the last quarter of the 20th century was marked by a tense reassessment of values. Many scientists perceive this phenomenon as a spiritual revolution, which is preparing the advent of a new system of social life or, as they say today, a new world order, i.e. a qualitatively new stage in the development of world civilization. In the context of the unfolding intellectual revolution, there is a crisis not only in the Marxist methodology of knowledge, but also in almost all areas of major classical theories of knowledge with their philosophical, worldview and logical and methodological foundations. According to Professor V. Yadov, world sociological thought today "questions the suitability of all classical social theories developed in the past"

The crisis in the theory of knowledge of the surrounding world is caused, first of all, by the fact that the modern human community is entering a new era of its development, which is commonly called a turning point. Tendencies inherent in the new order of development, tendencies of the formation of a multidimensional world, are affirmed in various forms. The theories of knowledge that existed until now (including Marxism) were oriented towards the development of machine civilization. Marxism in its essence is the logic and theory of machine civilization. However, this theory, in one form or another, extended to both earlier and future forms of social development.

Today, humanity is experiencing a change in the industrial paradigm of social progress to post-industrial, informational, which indicates its entry into a new world civilization. And this, in turn, necessitates the creation of an appropriate logical and methodological tool for understanding social development.

Among the new methodological approaches to the problems of world social development, the concept of a polyfundamental multidimensional world should be singled out. One of the criteria for multidimensionality is the equation of the part and the whole. In a multidimensional picture of a social system, such parts of it as culture, science, economics, politics, etc. are no less than the whole, but are of equal order and are equally powerful (equivalent) with it. In other words, multidimensionality is not a relationship between a social system and its private spheres, levels, subsystems, and not a relationship between structures, one of which is determined by the basic, primary, fundamental, etc. This relationship is revealed at a deeper level: between such structures, each of which is an equivalent individual dimension of the social whole in which it is included.

Recently, researchers have shown an increasing commitment to a non-linear (synergistic) style of thinking. Having arisen in the field of physics, chemistry and having acquired the appropriate mathematical software, synergetics quickly went beyond the scope of these sciences, and soon biologists, and after them social scientists, found themselves under its powerful influence.

With the help of synergetics as a methodology, historical processes are studied in their multidimensional form. The issues of self-organization and self-development in open and closed systems occupy a central place in the study. Society appears as a non-linear system with an integrating backbone factor. The role of this factor in different systems can be played by different subsystems, including not always the economic sphere. Much depends on the reaction of society to the challenge of the "external environment" and the dynamics of internal processes. The reaction of society is aimed at achieving the most useful result within the framework of the relevant value orientations.

Synergetics considers the development of society as a non-linear system, which is carried out through two models: evolutionary and bifurcation. The evolutionary model is characterized by the action of various determinations. They are not limited to cause-and-effect relationships, but also include functional, target, correlation, system and other types of determinations. A distinctive feature of the evolutionary model is the invariance of the system quality, which is determined through the system-forming factor. Throughout the entire stage of evolutionary development, the system-forming factor manifests itself as a special activity of a specific set of systems that play a leading role in the life of society at a given time interval.

According to the evolutionary model, the sustainable development of society is replaced by an increase in internal disequilibrium - a weakening of ties within the system - which indicates the brewing of a crisis. In a state of maximum internal disequilibrium, society enters a bifurcation phase of development, after which the former systemic quality is destroyed. The old determinations do not work here, the new ones have not yet unfolded. Under these conditions, alternative opportunities for reaching new systemic connections arise. The choice of one or another path at the bifurcation point depends on the action of the fluctuation (random factor), primarily on the activities of specific people. It is a specific historical personality (or personalities) that brings the system to a new systemic quality. Moreover, the choice of the path is carried out based on individual settings and preferences.

The role of chance, freedom at the bifurcation point is not just great, it is fundamental. This allows us to single out as an independent object of study, along with stable systems, a class of unstable systems. The action of the factor of chance indicates that the historical development of each society is individual and unique.

Recognizing the multiplicity of development paths of various societies, laying individual routes through bifurcation points, synergetics understands under the general historical pattern not a single path of historical development, but uniform principles of "walking" along different historical routes. Thus, synergetics makes it possible to overcome the limitations of classical approaches in history. It combines the idea of ​​evolutionism with the idea of ​​the multivariance of the historical process. Historical synergetics gives scientific status to the problem of "the historical fate of Russia" that has been discussed for more than a century and a half.

Among modern non-traditional concepts of historical development, the systemic sociocultural theory of our compatriot A.S. Akhiezer, presented by him in the three-volume study "Russia: Criticism of Historical Experience". It is important to emphasize that the author considers a new systematic view of the history of Russia from non-Marxist methodological positions and against the general background of the world historical process. The study is not limited to a purely Russian framework, only modernity, but illuminates both the retrospective and the prospect of world civilization

Ideas traditional for Marxism about the determining role of economic relations, about the leading role of the working class, about class relations in general in the historical process, about exploitation, about surplus value, etc. are not relevant in the system of categories developed by A. Akhiezer. In fact, the socio-cultural potential of Russian society has become the main subject of the author's research. The theory is based on the category of reproduction. In Akhiezer this category is different from the Marxist notions of simple and expanded production. It acts as a general philosophical category, focusing on the need for constant reconstruction, restoration and development of all aspects of social life, aiming at the need to maintain and preserve what has already been achieved. It is in this, according to Akhiezer, that the viability of society is manifested, the ability to avoid social catastrophes, the destruction and death of social systems.

Culture is considered by the author as the experience of understanding the world created and assimilated by a person, and social relations - as organizational forms that implement this cultural experience. There is never an identity between culture and social relations. Moreover, an indispensable condition of human life, the life of society, the course of history is the contradiction between them. The normal process of development of society continues until the contradiction passes a certain measure, after which the destruction of both culture and social relations begins.

In Russia, the socio-cultural contradiction has resulted in such a sharp form as a split. It is in the schism that Akhiezer sees the explanation of why historical inertia acts so strongly in Russia. The split is the lack of dialogue between the values ​​and ideals of the bulk of the population, on the one hand, and the ruling and spiritual elite, on the other, the incompatibility of the semantic fields of different sociocultural groups. The consequence of the split is a situation where people, society cannot become subjects of their own history. As a result, elemental forces operate in it, throwing society from one extreme to another, leading it from catastrophe to catastrophe.

The schism is taking place and being reproduced in all spheres of public life, including the cultural and spiritual spheres. Due to the reproduction of the split, all attempts by the Russian ruling elites to radically change the situation, to overcome the split did not lead to anything. Akhiezer sees the mechanism of the split in the following. In the East, traditional (syncretic) forms of worldview translate new realities into their own language, i.e. there is a synthesis of traditional and modern cultures, which can become dynamic and not hinder development. In the West, new ideals grew out of popular soil and the contradictions between the cultural innovations of liberal society and traditional culture were pushed into the background. In Russia, however, these contradictions are still preserved and even aggravated. Coming into contact with the traditional ones, the new ideals here form not a synthesis, but a hybrid, as a result of which their old anti-modernization content is often strengthened. Therefore, every step forward can also be a rollback. The hybrid of liberalism with traditionalism in the conditions of Russia showed its limited possibilities, since traditionalism occupied too much place in our country. This is the explanation of why in our society the ideals of the past are defended very often by full-blooded, whole individuals, while the reformers look fragile, wavering. However, the split in Russia is not some attribute inherent in Russian society, but the result of the development of the historical situation. And therefore, despite its centuries-old existence, it is temporary, transitory.

The theory created by A. Akhiezer can also be defined as the theory of transitional social systems. The traditional society (Eastern civilization) is not familiar with the contradictions that Russia is tormented by. Western society (liberal civilization) also successfully avoided them (at least in sharp conflict forms). In this regard, many researchers consider Russia as a special, third mega-civilization - Eurasian. However, the Eurasian civilization is not absolutely unique. Rather, this is a special case of situations common to countries that are lagging behind in their development. It is no coincidence that they are called "catching up civilizations."

A. Akhiezer, thus, moved away from the linear scheme (positivist, pragmatic), studying historical processes in some fixed general units, and presented us with a voluminous, multidimensional vision of history. In the center of his research is the process of reproduction, recrystallization of the socio-cultural whole. There is a view of society not as something that develops in a straight line and progressively, but as a living organism capable of changing its characteristics under the influence of external subjective factors. Moreover, this social organism is characterized by a recurring cyclical development. The author sees the possibility of stopping such development on the paths of globalization of our internal development, i.e. complete transition to the global civilizational path of development.

Today we observe in science the processes of synthesis of sciences based on the development of complex research methods.

All major creative scientific and scientific and technical problems are being solved today through the creation of creative and scientific groups, laboratories, research institutes, bringing together scientists of different specialties. In the course of joint work on specific projects, a new scientific language common to various sciences is being developed and there is an intensive exchange of information accumulated during the period of scientific differentiation. This allows researchers to predict the formation and development of a unified science or a return to the period of undifferentiated science only at a different level.

Since the beginning of the XX century. there is a growing understanding among philosophers and historians of the interconnection and interdependence of various factors interacting in human society. Moreover, at different stages of human development, the role of various factors, their place in the life of an individual and society change.

So in the early stages of human development, biological and geographical factors seem to be decisive, then economic, and, finally, in our time, technical and scientific. In modern historical science, the whole set of factors, their interweaving, interaction is considered. A significant contribution to the formation of this approach was made by representatives of Russian philosophy, one of the founders of scientific sociology P. Sorokin, as well as the historical school of the Annals, which developed mainly in France in 1929 (J. Annals, as well as the geophysicist Vernadsky, the philosopher B. Russell, historian M. Block, etc.) This concept was called the civilizational or cultural approach to history.

Today, the development of this concept continues, which moves from the level of scientific hypotheses to the level of curricula for colleges and universities. In accordance with this concept, the history of mankind is divided into three main periods: savagery (the period of gathering and hunting), barbarism (the period of agrarian culture), the period of industrial civilization. Obviously, this periodization is based on the nature of the activities of the majority of people in a given society at a given time. The civilizational approach to history does not deny, but organically includes both chronological and formational approaches. At the same time, there are differences in periodization. They are clearly visible from the table below.

Periodization of world history in various methodological approaches of historical science.

Chronological	Formational	Civilizational
1.ANCIENT WORLD: since ancient times before the 5th century AD	1. PRIMARY COMMON since ancient times up to 3500 BC	1. WILD: c > 3 Ma BC up to 10 thousand years BC
2.MIDDLE AGES: From the 5th century AD Until the 15th century	2. SLAVE-OWNING ORGANIZATION: From 3500 BC BC	2. BABABACY: 10,000 years BC - Middle of the 18th century
3.NEW TIME: from the 16th century to 1917	3.FEUDAL FORMATION: From the 5th to the 16th century 3. CAPITALISM: from the 16th century to 1917	3. INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATION: End of the 18th century – 1970s
4. MODERN HISTORY: from 1917 to our days	4. SOCIALISM: 1917 to present day	4. POST-INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATION since the 1970s and the foreseeable future
	5.COMMUNISM: not very distant future.

Methods of historical science

To study facts, phenomena and events, processes, historical science uses a variety of methods: both general scientific and its own. Among the latter are the following: chronological, chronological-problematic , problem-chronological. Other methods are also used: periodization, comparative historical, retrospective, system-structural, statistical, sociological research, which is used mainly to study the problems of our time

When studying and researching the history of Russia, considers one of the authors of the university textbook "History of Russia" Sh.M. Munchaev the following methods are used:

1) chronological, the essence of which is that the study and study of the history of Russia is presented strictly in time ( chronological) order;

2) chronological-problematic, providing for the study and study of the history of Russia by periods (themes), or eras, and within them - by problems;

3) problem-chronological studying and researching any one side of the life and activities of the state in its consistent development;

4) much less frequently used synchronous a method that allows you to establish links and relationships between falls and processes occurring at the same time in different places in Russia or its regions.

Among other methods used to study and study the history of Russia, the above methods should also be noted.

AND I. Lerner believes that Methods of historical knowledge that have a general educational value include:

1. Comparative historical method. 2. Method of analogies. 3. Statistical method: selective, group. 4. Establishing causes by effects. 5. Determining the purpose of acting people and groups according to their actions and the consequences of these actions.6. Determination of the embryo by mature forms. 7. The method of inverse conclusions (definition of the past by existing remnants).8. Generalization of formulas, i.e. evidence of monuments of customary and written law, questionnaires characterizing the mass nature of certain phenomena. 9. Reconstruction of the whole in parts. 10. Determining the level of spiritual life according to the monuments of material culture.11. linguistic method.

Each of these methods involves its own specific, sometimes variable method of implementation, for which a generalized prescription-algorithm can be compiled. Let's take the first and the last as an example.

Yes, for comparative historical method is usually characterized by the following algorithm:

1) updating the comparable object; 2) highlighting the features of the compared object that are important for the problem being solved; 3) comparison of objects according to similar features or comparison of features of objects, given that commonality characterizes the degree of continuity, and differences characterize trends in change; 4) the possible (not always) use of analogy in the absence of some features; 5) actualization of the causes of differences to prove the logical correspondence of the solution to the condition of the problem.

For linguistic method , which is used in historical linguistics and is quite common in everyday social practice, we can propose the following prescription:

1) determination of the meaning of words or their combination; 2) the introduction of the original thought about the reflection of reality by the word; 3) correlating the meaning of the word with the properties of the object or its features; 4) the establishment of phenomena and their signs according to the concepts that reflect them; 5) establishment of connections between phenomena according to the generality or temporal connection of concepts; 6) establishing links by subsuming a specific, specific meaning of concepts under a generic one.

3.Methodology of history: main approaches (theories)

Interest in the past has existed since the beginning of the human race. At the same time, historically the subject of history was defined ambiguously: it could be social, political, economic, demographic history, the history of the city, village, family, private life. The definition of the subject of stories is subjective, connected with the ideology of the state and the worldview of the historian . Historians standing on materialistic positions, believe that history as a science studies the patterns of development of society, which, ultimately, depend on the method of production of material goods. This approach prioritizes the economy, society, and not people when explaining causality. Liberal Historians, We are convinced that the subject of the study of history is a person (personality) in the self-realization of natural rights granted by nature.

Whatever subject historians study, they all use in their research scientific categories : historical movement (historical time, historical space), historical fact, theory of study (methodological interpretation).

historical movement includes interrelated scientific categories - historical time and historical space . Each segment of the movement in historical time is woven from thousands of connections, material and spiritual, it is unique and has no equal. Outside the concept of historical time, history does not exist. Events following one after another form a time series. Almost until the end of the 18th century, historians distinguished eras according to the reign of sovereigns. French historians in the 18th century began to single out eras of savagery, barbarism and civilization. At the end of the 19th century, materialist historians divided the history of society into formations: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist, and communist. At the turn of the 21st century, historical-liberal periodization divides society into periods: traditional, industrial, informational (post-industrial). Under historical space understand the totality of natural-geographical, economic, political, socio-cultural processes occurring in a certain territory. Under the influence of natural and geographical factors, the way of life of peoples, occupations, and psychology are formed; there are features of socio-political and cultural life. Since ancient times, there has been a division of peoples into Western and Eastern. This refers to the common historical fate, the social life of these peoples.

historical fact is a real event in the past. The entire past of mankind is woven from historical facts. We get specific historical facts from historical sources, but in order to obtain a historical picture, we need to line up the facts in a logical chain and explain them.

In order to work out an objective picture of the historical process, historical science must rely on a certain methodology, some general principles that would make it possible to streamline all the material accumulated by researchers and create effective explanatory models.

Theories of the historical process or theories of learning (methodological interpretations, foundations) determined by the subject of history. Theory is a logical scheme explaining historical facts. Theories are the core of all historical works, regardless of the time of their writing. Based on the subject of historical research, each theory identifies my periodization, determines mine conceptual apparatus, creates my historiography. Various theories reveal only their regularities or alternatives - variants of the historical process - and offer his vision of the past, do their forecasts for the future.

By subject stand out three theories of studying the history of Humanity: religious-historical, world-historical, locally historical.

In religious-historical theory the subject of study is the movement of a person towards God, the connection of a person with the Higher Mind.

In world-historical theory the subject of study is the global progress of Mankind, which allows to receive material benefits. The social essence of a person, the progress of his consciousness, which allows creating an ideal person and society, is put at the head. Society has separated itself from nature, and man transforms nature in accordance with his growing needs. The development of history is identified with progress. All nations go through the same stages of progress. The idea of ​​progressive social development is regarded as a law, as a necessity, an inevitability.

Within the framework of the world-historical theory of study, there are three main areas: materialistic, liberal, technological.

materialistic (formational) direction, studying the progress of Mankind, it gives priority to the development of society of social relations associated with forms of ownership. History is presented as a pattern of change in socio-economic formations. The change of formations is based on the contradiction between the level of development of productive forces and the level of development of production relations. The driving force behind the development of society is the class struggle between the haves who own private property (exploiters) and the have-nots (exploited), naturally leading, ultimately, as a result of the revolution, to the destruction of private property and the construction of a classless society.

For a long time historical science was dominated by subjectivist or objective-idealistic methodology . The historical process from the positions of subjectivism was explained by the action of great people: leaders, Caesars, kings, emperors and other major political figures. According to this approach, their smart calculations or, on the contrary, mistakes, led to one or another historical event, the totality and interconnection of which determined the course and outcome of the historical process.

Objective idealistic concept assigned a decisive role in the historical process to the action of objective superhuman forces: Divine will, providence, Absolute idea, World Will, etc. With this interpretation, the historical process acquired a purposeful character. Under the influence of these superhuman forces, society steadily moved towards a predetermined goal. Historical figures acted only as a means, an instrument in the hands of these superhuman, impersonal forces.

In accordance with the solution of the question of the driving forces of the historical process, the periodization of history was also carried out. Periodization according to the so-called historical epochs was the most widespread: the Ancient World, Antiquity, the Middle Ages, the Renaissance, the Enlightenment, the New and the Newest Time. In this periodization, the time factor was quite clearly expressed, but there were no meaningful qualitative criteria for isolating these epochs.

To overcome the shortcomings of the methodologies of historical research, to put history like other humanities. In the middle of the 19th century, the German thinker K. Marx, who formulated the concept materialistic explanation of history , based on four main principles:

1. The principle of the unity of Mankind and, consequently, the unity of the historical process.

2. The principle of historical regularity. Marx proceeds from the recognition of action in the historical process of general, stable, recurring essential connections and relationships between people and the results of their activities.

3. The principle of determinism - the recognition of the existence of causal relationships and dependencies.From the whole variety of historical phenomena, Marx considered it necessary to single out the main, determining ones. Such a main, determining factor in the historical process, in his opinion, is the method of production of material and spiritual goods.

4. The principle of progress. From the point of view of K. Marx, historical progress is the progressive development of society , rising to higher and higher levels.

The materialistic explanation of history is based on the formational approach. The concept of socio-economic formation in the teachings of Marx occupies a key place in explaining the driving forces of the historical process and the periodization of history. Marx proceeds from the following premise: if humanity develops naturally, progressively as a whole, then all of it must pass through certain stages in its development. He called these stages “socio-economic formations” (SEF).

The OEF is a society that is at a certain stage of historical development, a society with peculiar distinctive characteristics. Marx borrowed the concept of “formation” from contemporary natural science. This concept in geology, geography, biology denotes certain structures associated with the unity of the conditions of formation, the similarity of composition, the interdependence of elements.

The basis of the socio-economic formation, according to Marx, is one or another mode of production, which is characterized by a certain level and nature of the development of productive forces and production relations corresponding to this level and nature. The main relations of production are the relations of ownership. The totality of production relations forms its basis, over which political, legal and other relations and institutions are built, which in turn correspond to certain forms of social consciousness: morality, religion, art, philosophy, science, etc. Thus, socio-economic formation includes in its composition all the diversity of society at one stage or another of its development.

From the point of view of the formational approach, humanity in its historical development goes through five main stages-formations: primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and communist (socialism is the first phase of the communist formation, the second is “proper communism”).

The transition from one socio-economic formation to another is carried out on the basis of a social revolution. The economic basis of the social revolution is the deepening conflict between the productive forces of society that have reached a new level and acquired a new character and the outdated, conservative system of production relations. This conflict in the political sphere is manifested in the intensification of social antagonisms and the intensification of the class struggle between the ruling class, which is interested in maintaining the existing system, and the oppressed classes, who demand an improvement in their position.

The revolution leads to a change in the ruling class. The victorious class carries out transformations in all spheres of public life and thus creates the prerequisites for the formation of a new system of socio-economic, legal and other social relations, a new consciousness, etc. This is how a new formation is formed. In this regard, in the Marxist conception of history, a significant role was given to the class struggle and revolution. The class struggle was declared the most important driving force of history, and K. Marx called revolutions "the locomotives of history."

The materialistic concept of history, based on the formational approach, has been dominant in the historical science of our country over the past 80 years. The strength of this concept lies in the fact that, based on certain criteria, it creates a clear explanatory model of the entire historical development. The history of mankind appears as an objective, natural, progressive process. The driving forces of this process, the main stages, etc. are clear. However, the formational approach to the knowledge and explanation of history is not without its shortcomings. These shortcomings are pointed out by his critics both in foreign and domestic historiography. First, the unilinear nature of historical development is assumed here. The theory of formations was formulated by K. Marx as a generalization of the historical path of Europe. And Marx himself saw that some countries do not fit into this scheme of alternation of five formations. These countries he attributed to the so-called "Asiatic mode of production." On the basis of this method, according to Marx, a special formation is formed. But he did not carry out a detailed development of this issue. Later, historical research showed that in Europe, the development of certain countries (for example, Russia) cannot always be inserted into the scheme of the change of five formations. Thus, the formational approach creates certain difficulties in reflecting the diversity of the multivariance of historical development.

Secondly, the formational approach is characterized by a rigid binding of any historical phenomena to the mode of production, the system of economic relations. The historical process is considered, first of all, from the point of view of the formation and change of the mode of production: decisive importance in explaining historical phenomena is given to objective, non-personal factors, and the main subject of history - a person, is given a secondary role. Man appears in that theory only as a cog in a powerful objective mechanism driving historical development. Thus, the human, personal content of history is belittled, and with it the spiritual factors of historical development.

Thirdly, the formational approach absolutizes the role of conflict relations, including violence, in the historical process. The historical process in this methodology is described mainly through the prism of the class struggle. Hence, along with economic, a significant role is given to political processes. Opponents of the formational approach point out that social conflicts, although they are a necessary attribute of social life, still do not play a decisive role in it. And this also requires a reassessment of the place of political relations in history. They are important, but spiritual and moral life is of decisive importance.

Fourth, the formational approach contains elements of providentialism and social utopianism. As noted above, the formational concept assumes the inevitability of the development of the historical process from the classless primitive communal formation through the class - slave, feudal and capitalist formations - to the classless communist formation. K. Marx and his students spent a lot of effort to prove the inevitability of the onset of the era of communism, in which everyone will contribute their property according to their abilities, and receive from society according to their needs. In Christian terminology, the achievement of communism means the achievement by humanity of the Kingdom of God on Earth. The utopian nature of this scheme was revealed in the last decades of the existence of Soviet power and the socialist system. The overwhelming majority of peoples have abandoned the "building of communism."

The methodology of the formational approach in modern historical science is to some extent opposed by the methodology of the civilizational approach, which began to take shape as early as the 18th century. However, it received its fullest development only at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In foreign historiography, the most prominent adherents of this methodology are M. Weber, A. Toynbee, O. Spengler and a number of major modern historians who have united around the historical journal Annals (F. Braudel, J. Le Goff and others). In Russian historical science, his supporters were N.Ya. Danilevsky, K.N. Leontiev, P.A. Sorokin.

The main structural unit of the historical process, from the point of view of this approach, is civilization. The term "civilization" comes from the Latin word urban, civil, state. Initially, the term "civilization" denoted a certain level of development of society that comes in the life of peoples after the era of savagery and barbarism. The hallmarks of civilization, from the point of view of this interpretation, is the emergence of cities, writing, social stratification of society, statehood.

In a broader sense, civilization is most often understood as a high level of development of the culture of society. Thus, in the Age of Enlightenment in Europe, civilization was associated with the improvement of morals, laws, art, science, and philosophy. There are opposing points of view in that context, in which civilization is interpreted as the final moment in the development of the culture of a particular society, meaning its "decline" or decline (O. Spengler).

However, for a civilizational approach to the historical process, it is more significant to understand civilization as an integral social system that includes various elements (religion, culture, economic, political and social organization, etc.) that are coordinated with each other and are closely interconnected. Each element of this system bears the imprint of the originality of this or that civilization. This uniqueness is very stable. And although under the influence of certain external and internal influences certain changes occur in civilization, their certain basis, their inner core remains unchanged. Such an approach to civilization is fixed in the theory of cultural-historical types of civilization by N.Ya. Danilevsky, A. Toynbee, O. Spengler and others.

Cultural-historical types- These are historically established communities that occupy a certain territory and have their own characteristics of cultural and social development that are characteristic only for them. N.Ya. Danilevsky has 13 types or "original civilizations", A. Toynbee - 6 types, O. Spengler - 8 types.

The civilized approach has a number of strengths:

1) its principles are applicable to the history of any country or group of countries. This approach is focused on the knowledge of the history of society, taking into account the specifics of countries and regions. Hence versatility l of this methodology;

2) focus on taking into account the specifics involves the idea of ​​history as a multi-linear, multi-variant process;

3) the civilizational approach does not reject, but, on the contrary, assumes the integrity, unity of human history. Civilizations as integral systems are comparable with each other. This makes it possible to widely use the comparative-historical method of research. As a result of this approach, the history of a country, people, region is considered not in itself, but in comparison with the history of other countries, peoples, regions, civilizations. This makes it possible to better understand historical processes, to fix their features;

4) the allocation of certain criteria for the development of civilization allows historians to assess the level of achievements of certain countries, peoples and regions, their contribution to the development of world civilization;

5) the civilizational approach assigns a proper role in the historical process to the human spiritual, moral and intellectual factors. In this approach, religion, culture, and mentality are important for the characterization and evaluation of civilization.

The weakness of the methodology of the civilizational approach lies in the amorphousness of the criteria for distinguishing types of civilization. This allocation by the supporters of this approach is carried out according to a set of features, which, on the one hand, should be of a fairly general nature, and on the other hand, would make it possible to identify specific features characteristic of many societies. In the theory of cultural-historical types of N.Ya. Danilevsky, civilizations are distinguished by a peculiar combination of four fundamental elements: religious, cultural, political and socio-economic. In some civilizations, the economic principle dominates, in others - the political, and in the third - the religious, in the fourth - the cultural. Only in Russia, according to Danilevsky, is a harmonious combination of all these elements realized.

The theory of cultural-historical types N.Ya. Danilevsky to some extent involves the application of the principle of determinism in the form of dominance, which determines the role of some elements of the system of civilization. However, the nature of this dominance is elusive.

Even greater difficulties in the analysis and evaluation of the types of civilization arise before the researcher when the main element of this or that type of civilization is considered the type of mentality, the mentality. Mentality, mentality (from French - thinking, psychology) is a certain general spiritual mood of the people of a particular country or region, fundamental stable structures of consciousness, a set of socio-psychological attitudes and beliefs of an individual and society. These attitudes determine the worldview of a person, the nature of values ​​and ideals, form the subjective world of the individual. Guided by these attitudes, a person acts in all spheres of his life - creates history. The intellectual and spiritual-moral structures of man undoubtedly play the most important role in history, but their indicators are poorly perceptible and vague.

There are a number of claims to the civilizational approach associated with the interpretation of the driving forces of the historical process, the direction and meaning of historical development.

All this taken together allows us to conclude that both approaches - formational and civilizational - make it possible to consider the historical process from different angles. Each of these approaches has strengths and weaknesses, but if you try to avoid the extremes of each of them, and take the best that is available in a particular methodology, then historical science will only benefit.

liberal direction teaching progress - the evolution of Mankind - give priority in it to the development personalities securing his individual freedoms. Personality serves as the starting point for the liberal study of history. Liberals believe that in history there is always an alternative development. If the vector of the progress of history corresponds to the Western European way of life, this is the way to ensure human rights and freedoms, and if it is Asian, then this is the way of despotism, the arbitrariness of the authorities in relation to the individual.

Technological direction, studying the progress of Mankind, gives priority in it to technological development and accompanying changes in society. Milestones in this development are fundamental discoveries: the emergence of agriculture and animal husbandry, the development of iron metallurgy, etc., as well as the political, economic and social systems corresponding to them. Fundamental discoveries determine the progress of Mankind and do not depend on the ideological coloring of this or that political regime. The technological direction divides the history of mankind into periods; traditional (agrarian), industrial, post-industrial (information).

In local-historical theory the subject of study are local civilizations. Each of the local civilizations is original, connected with nature and goes through the stages of birth, formation, flourishing, decline and death in its development. At the head of the theory is the genetic and biological essence of man and the specific environment of his habitat. Not the progress of consciousness, the mind of a person, but his subconscious, eternal biological instincts: the prolongation of the family, envy, the desire to live better than others, greed, herding and others determine and inevitably determine in time one or another, born by Nature, form of social organization. Within the framework of local historical theory, there are a number of areas of so-called.Slavophilism, Westernism, Eurasianism and others.

The idea of ​​a special path for Russia, different from Western and Eastern countries, was formulated at the turn of the 15th - 16th centuries. the elder of the Eleazarov Monastery Philotheus - this was the teaching "Moscow - the Third Rome". According to this teaching, the messianic role of Russia, called upon to preserve true Christianity lost in other countries, and to show the way of development for the rest of the world, became clear.

In the 17th century, Russian historians, under the influence of Western historians, switched to the position of a world-historical theory of study, considering Russian history as part of the world. However, the idea of ​​a special, different from Western European, development of Russia continued to exist in Russian society. In the 30s - 40s. XIX century there were currents "Westerners" - supporters of the world-historical theory - and "Slavophiles" - supporters of local-historical theory. Westerners proceeded from the concept of the unity of the human world and believed that Western Europe was at the head of the world, most fully and successfully implementing the principles of humanity, freedom and progress, and showing the way for the rest of humanity. The task of Russia, which only since the time of Peter the Great embarked on the path of Western development, is to get rid of inertia and Asiaticism as soon as possible, by joining the European West, to merge with it into one cultural universal family.

Local historical theory The study of Russian history gained significant popularity in the middle and second half of the 19th century. Representative of this theory Slavophiles and Populists, believed that there is no single universal community, and therefore, a single path of development for all peoples. Each nation lives its own "original" life, which is based on the ideological principle, the "national spirit". For Russia, such beginnings are the Orthodox faith and the principles of inner truth and spiritual freedom associated with it; the embodiment of these principles in life is the peasant world, the community as a voluntary union for mutual help and support. According to the Slavophiles, Western principles of formal legal justice and Western organizational forms are alien to Russia. The reforms of Peter I, the Slavophiles and populists believed, turned Russia from the natural path of development to the Western path alien to it.

With the spread of Marxism in Russia at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, the world-historical theory of study replaced the local-historical one. After 1917, one of the branches of the world-historical theory - materialistic- became official. A scheme for the development of society was developed, based on the theory of socio-economic formations. The materialistic direction of world-historical theory gave a new interpretation of Russia's place in world history. She regarded the October Revolution of 1917 as socialist, and the system established in Russia as socialism. According to K. Marx, socialism is a social system that should replace capitalism. Consequently, Russia automatically turned from a backward European country into "the world's first country of victorious socialism", into a country "indicating the path of development for all Mankind."

The part of Russian society that ended up in emigration after the events of 1917-1920 adhered to religious beliefs. In the environment of emigration, the local-historical theory has also received significant development, in line with which the "Eurasian direction" has developed. The main ideas of the Eurasianists are, firstly, the idea of ​​a special mission for Russia, which stems from the special “local development” of the latter. The Eurasians believed that the roots of the Russian people could not be connected only with the Slavic ones. In the formation of the Russian people, the Turkic and Finno-Ugric tribes played an important role, inhabiting the same territory with the Eastern Slavs and constantly interacting with them. As a result, the Russian nation was formed, uniting multilingual peoples into a single state - Russia. Secondly, this is the idea of ​​Russian culture as a culture "middle, Eurasian". "The culture of Russia is neither a European culture, nor any of the Asian ones, nor the sum or mechanical combination of the elements of both." Thirdly, the history of Eurasia is the history of many states, ultimately leading to the creation of a single, large state. The Eurasian state requires a single state ideology.

At the turn of the 20th-21st centuries, Russia began to spread historical and technological direction of world-historical theory. According to him, history presents a dynamic picture of the spread of fundamental discoveries in the form of cultural and technological circles diverging around the world. The effect of these discoveries is such that they give the discoverer people a decisive advantage over others.

Thus, the process of comprehending and rethinking the history of Russia is currently ongoing. It should be noted, that in all ages historical facts were grouped by thinkers in line with three theories of study: religious-historical, world-historical and local-historical.

The turn of the XX-XXI centuries is the time of the completion of the scientific and technological revolution in the world, the dominance of computer technology and the threat of a global environmental crisis. Today, a new vision of the structure of the world is emerging, and historians offer other directions of the historical process and their corresponding periodization systems.

Ranke recognizes this method as the key to historical research. Description is one of many research procedures. In fact, the study begins with the description, it answers the question "what is it?". The better the description, the better the research. The originality of the object of historical knowledge requires appropriate linguistic means of expression. The natural-language way of presentation is the most adequate for the perception of the general reader. The language of historical description is not a language of formalized structures (see the Language of the Historian topic).

The description expresses the following points:

Individual qualitative originality of phenomena;

The dynamics of the development of phenomena;

The development of phenomena in connection with others;

The role of the human factor in history;

The image of the subject of historical reality (the image of the era).

Thus, description is a necessary link (CONDITION) in the picture of historical reality, the initial stage of historical research, an important condition and prerequisite for understanding the essence of a phenomenon. This is the quintessence of this method. But the description itself does not give an understanding of the essence, since it is the inner essence of the phenomenon. Description is like an external factor. The description is complemented by a higher degree of knowledge - analysis.

Description is not a random enumeration of information about the depicted. The scientific description has its own logic, its own meaning, which are determined by the methodological principles (of the author). For example, chronicles. Their goal is to exalt the monarch. Chronicles - the chronological principle + recognition, showing the dynasty chosen by God, a certain moralizing. In the study, the specific weight of the description, as a rule, prevails over the conclusions and generalizations.

Description and generalization within the framework of historical research are interrelated (description without generalization is just factology. Generalization without description is schematization).

The descriptive-narrative method is one of the most common in historical research.

2. Biographical method.

It is one of the oldest methods of historical research. We find the beginning of the biographical method in antiquity, I-II centuries. AD in Plutarch's Comparative Lives. In this work, Plutarch tries to perceive the activities of people as history. At the same time, the main idea proposed by Plutarch is the idea of ​​providentialism. At the same time, the role of the individual in history is negligible. Nevertheless, the biographical method raises an important question - about the role of the individual in history. He does not just put, he either indirectly or directly defines this role as significant. In the Age of Enlightenment, an important rethinking of the role of the individual in history takes place.

In fact, Carnel is the most famous adherent of the biographical method in history. In the XX century. we also meet in the biographical method. Lewis Namer said that the essence of history is in personal connections, in the center of research is a simple person. But for him, a simple person is a deputy. He explored the history of English parliamentarism in the form of biographies of deputies of various convocations. The essence of history is significant moments in the biographies of deputies.

The most important in history are the dates of their life, origin, position, education, all kinds of connections, possession of wealth. Nämer's approach assumes the perception of a person as a social unit. Through biographies, the personal interests of the individual transform the public. Parliament's activity is a struggle for personal well-being, power, career. In the XX century. there is some narrowing of the possibilities of the biographical method.

This is due to the fact that political history is losing its former role and new branches of historical research are emerging: social, structural, gender history, etc. A surge of interest in the biographical method was observed in the 60-70s, this was especially evident in the work of Fest, the work "Adolf Hitler". Fest tried to unite the fate of the little corporal, who became the Fuhrer, with the fate of Germany. Hitler is the flesh of the flesh of the German people with all the fears, successes, decisions, etc. Hitler's biography is a mirror image of the fate of the German people.

Modern methodological foundations for the application of the biographical method. At the center of the possibility of applying this method is the solution of an important methodological problem - the role of the individual and the masses in history. This is one of the key problems, so the biographical method cannot be abandoned. In any historical fact there are features of the personal and the collective. it is necessary to determine the combination of these factors in specific conditions. The question of the emergence of great personalities.

Historical science is trying to answer this question in a broad aspect - how much this or that figure can correspond to the concept of "great personality" + assessment of the results of this personality. As a result, answering this question, the researcher one way or another is faced with the problem of an inexplicable event in history. There is no definite answer to this question. At the same time, one must keep in mind the external conditions for the emergence of a great personality. Based on external factors, there is an adjustment of the ratio of the role of the individual and conditions.

3. Comparative historical method.

This is one of the most widely used methods. At the center of this study is the method of comparison. In the era of antiquity, different cycles in history were compared. Comparison is used as a means of creating a view of historical cycles. There is no qualitative certainty social phenomena. In modern times, the comparative method was determined by the search for similarities in phenomena. The use of comparison led to insufficient emphasis on individual traits, hence there is no criterion for evaluation.

In the era of enlightenment, a criterion for comparison appears - this is human nature - reasonable, kind, bearing an unchanging character (comparison with the golden age, i.e. with the past). widespread use of the comparative method in the Age of Enlightenment. It has a characteristic of versatility. The comparison method was used so widely that even incomparable quantities were compared. When comparing, the emphasis was still on finding similarities. But all the same, there was an impossibility to completely solve this problem - the search for a similar one, because the criterion is in the distant past, out of time.

As a result, it turned out to be difficult to understand the peculiarity of the phenomenon. It is difficult to understand the peculiarity of a phenomenon that is in a temporal flow. XIX century: the comparative method is subjected to serious analysis, the problems of the cognitive capabilities of the comparative method are identified, scientists are trying to find a framework for the application of the comparative historical method. It was recognized that homogeneous structures and repetitive types could be compared. the so-called. "typology of phenomena" (Mommsen). Opportunities are revealed for identifying the singular and the general. The emphasis on the singular was made by Gerhard.

The use of the comparative historical method made it possible to compare and draw analogies with phenomena of different times.

Methodological foundations of the comparative historical method.

The methodological core is the need to recognize the inextricable link similar, repetitive and individual in historical events. This is a condition for the rational application of the comparative historical method. The essence of the approach is that the comparison shows both similar and repetitive. We can raise the question of comparing phenomena of the same order (as far as it is possible to compare the uprising of Spartacus and the jacquerie).

Conditions for a productive comparison:

The most detailed description of the studied phenomena

The degree of knowledge of the compared phenomena should be approximately the same.

Thus, the descriptive-narrative method precedes the comparative-historical one.

Steps of the comparative historical method:

1. Analogy. There is no definition of the essence of phenomena. An analogy is used as an illustration of something. This is not an analysis, but a simple transfer of the representation of an object to an object. It raises the question of the quality of analogies: how similar is one object to another. Analogies were widely used by Arnold Toynbee.

2. Identification of essential-substantive characteristics, comparison of single-order phenomena. The main thing here is to determine how the phenomena are of the same order. This is the task of methodology. The criterion of single order is the regular repetition both along the "vertical" (in time) and "horizontally" (in space). An example is the revolution in Europe in the middle of the 19th century.

3. Typology. Within the framework of the typology, types of single-order phenomena are distinguished. choice of classification features. For example, the Prussian and American ways of development of capitalism. The main principle is noble land tenure. The development of feudal relations in Europe: which relations prevail - Germanic or Romanesque? What does romance mean? Romanesque are the Pyrenees and the Apennines. The German type is England and Scandinavia. Mixed type - Frankish state (Michael de Coulange's approach).

Thus, the use of the comparative historical method involves the identification of a set of phenomena of the same order, the same degree of their study, the identification of differences and similarities between them in order to achieve generalizing ideas.

4. Retrospective.

The very word "retrospect" is the essence of historical knowledge (look back). Within the framework of the retrospective method, the course of the historian's search is, as it were, the reverse of standard study. The essence of the retrospective method is a reliance on a higher stage of development. The goal is to understand and evaluate previous phenomena.

Reasons for using the retrospective method:

Lack of actual source data;

The need to trace the development of an event from beginning to end;

The need to obtain data of a new order.

There are phenomena that manifest themselves over time on a new essential basis, have consequences that were not originally expected. For example, the campaigns of Alexander the Great (it was planned to avenge the hardships during the Greco-Persian wars, but as a result the Hellenistic era was started), the FBI (the original goal was to free the prisoners of the Bastille), the February revolution in Russia, etc.

The study of Morgan, who studies family and marriage relations from group forms to individual ones. He studied contemporary Indian tribes and compared them with the Greek family. He came to the conclusion that family and marriage relations develop in the same way, regardless of the era. Kovalchenko studied agrarian relations in Russia in the 19th century. He takes the ideas about the rural community of the 19th century to earlier stages. The retrospective method is related to the survival method.

This is a method of reconstructing objects that have gone into the past according to the remains that have survived and have come down to the present. This method was used by Taylor. He was engaged in the study of customs, rituals, views on the basis of ethnographic material. By studying the beliefs of modern primitive tribes, one can understand the ancient beliefs of Europeans. Or a study of German history in the 19th century. Such a study allows us to consider certain features of the agrarian history of the Middle Ages. In order to understand medieval processes, inanimate letters, plans, maps of the 19th century are studied. (Meizen).

Not always the retrospective method can be applied individually enough (what is suitable for studying Germany, may not be suitable for studying France, etc.). Mark Blok was engaged in the study of French boundary maps. He immediately identified the difference between the boundary maps of France and Germany. The study of barbaric truths. These truths are the source where many survivals are preserved.

A necessary condition for the application of the retrospective method is the proof of the relic nature of the evidence on the basis of which the reconstruction will be carried out. Those. you need to understand that modern relics are really such. As part of the application of the retrospective method, the most important assistant is the principle of historicism.

5. Method of terminological analysis.

The main instrument of information for the historian is the word. The linguistic problem is very acute. The meaning of this problem lies in the fact that there are difficulties in determining the meaning of the word, i.e. how the meaning of the word relates to the reality that it reflects.

We are faced with a terminological analysis of the source. Within the framework of this analysis, the terminological apparatus borrows its content from real life. Although the meaning of the word is not quite adequate to reality . The word must correspond to what it expresses. Therefore, in the conduct of many studies, the problem of concepts is posed. Carl Linnaeus said that if you do not know the words, then the study of things is impossible.

Now, in modern historical research, terminological analysis is becoming increasingly important, and in some cases it is absolutely necessary. And over time, the meaning of words changes. The meaning of words in the past may not coincide with the meaning of the same words in the present. Since the 19th century language began to be perceived as a source of historical knowledge. Historians Mommsen and Niebuhr drew attention to the importance of language when studying ancient subjects.

Features of the use of terminological analysis:

The development of the content of the terms of historical sources lags behind the real content of the historical event hidden behind it. the term is always archaic in relation to the event. scholarly historians can take this lag into account + this makes it possible to study earlier historical reality (for example, barbaric truths, which in their vocabulary can reflect the reality of the 4th-5th centuries, you can use them to study the events of the 6th-7th centuries. The term "villa" = one-yard settlement or village or territory of a settlement);

Terminological analysis is productive in cases where the source is written in the native language of the studied people. the possibility of terminological parallels (for example, Russian truth and chronicles; Salic truth and chronicles) - internal and external (Russian truth and Scandinavian truths; chronicles and European chronicles);

Dependence of terminological analysis on the nature of the source. the relationship between the methodological position of the historian and the analysis of the source. relevant conclusions;

Toponymic analysis as a kind of terminological. An important point is the conditionality of geographical names from time to time (for example, Khlynov and Vyatka). Toponyms provide an opportunity to study the process of settlement of the territory, occupations of the population, etc. Toponyms have special significance for non-literate cultures;

Anthroponymic analysis - the study of names and surnames;

Opportunities for the study of social issues, preferences, qualities of people.

Thus, the word can be considered as a key to understanding the phenomenon only when the terms are clear. Solving various aspects in the problem of language and history is a necessary condition for finding the true meaning of historical events.

Condition for successful application of terminological analysis:

It is necessary to take into account the ambiguity of the term (including the totality of terms)

The approach to the analysis of the term historically (take into account time, place, consider the term as a changing structure)

Comparison of new terms with old ones (identifying the content).

6. Method of mathematical statistics.

There are methods that reveal qualities, there are methods that reveal quantity. Quantity is a very important sign of reality.

For a historian, a very important point is the correlation of the quantitative and qualitative aspects of reality. This is the measure that reveals the unity of quantity and quality. In addition, quantity as a category reflects the essence of phenomena to a different extent.

The perception and use of quantitative research methods varies, there is a variation. For example, how much the number of soldiers in the army of Genghis Khan influenced how quickly China was captured, how much they can be correlated with the talent of these soldiers, Genghis Khan himself, the talent of enemies, etc. The conquest of China by Genghis Khan can be viewed in the correlation of categories that cannot be counted (the talent of generals and soldiers), the number of troops.

Laws of Hammurabi - a clear gradation for a crime is given: for example, killing a bull is one payment, a bull is another, a free man is a third, i.e. different actions are brought to the same denominator - the monetary unit. Based on this, conclusions can be drawn about the quality of society (the importance of a slave, a bull, a free person).

On the other hand, quantitative analysis cannot provide new knowledge in isolation from qualitative analysis. Kovalchenko: "Quantitative mathematical methods allow the researcher to obtain certain characteristics of the studied characteristics, but they do not explain anything by themselves." As a result, the quantitative moment is, as it were, neutral.

Mathematical methods are mostly applied in nature. You cannot explain events using only this data. Quantitative methods are dependent on the essence-content methods. But there are moments in history in which a quantitative characteristic is an essential feature. This applies, as a rule, to the field of economics. Another area is mass phenomena (wars, revolutionary movements). Here we intersect with statistical methods.

The original form of the quantitative method in history is the statistical method. The main thing in the statistics used in historical science is the statistics of social phenomena related to the economy, politics, demography, cultural aspects, etc. Statistics began to be involved in the historical phenomenon from the second half of the 17th century.

The next stage in the development of the statistical method is associated with the 19th century. and the name of Thomas Bockl. In addition to Buckle, the statistical method is actively used to study agrarian history as such (how much was grown, when, what crops, what is their ratio, etc.). In the twentieth century actively used the statistical method Druzhinin. Kosminsky, Barg, Kovalchenko, Mironov.

Conditions for the qualitative application of the statistical method:

1) recognition of the priority of qualitative analysis in relation to quantitative;

2) the study of qualitative and quantitative characteristics - in unity;

3) identifying the qualitative homogeneity of events for statistical processing;

4) taking into account the principle of using homogeneous data of “considerable numbers” (it is correct to operate with statistics from a thousand homogeneous values);

5) attraction of mass sources (censuses, chronicle data, etc.).

Types of statistical analysis:

1) the simplest type of statistics is descriptive (for example, census data without analysis, VCIOM data). Descriptive data is used to illustrate

2) selective. This is a way of probabilistic conclusion about the unknown based on the known (for example, the situation of the peasant economy in Russia in the first half of the 19th century is analyzed using household inventories. But only a part of these inventories has reached historians. Based on them, a conclusion is made about the general state of the economy)

This approach does not reflect the exact characteristics, but nevertheless it can show an important thing in the study - a trend.

7. Correlation method.

Associated with the quantitative method. The task is to determine the dependence of the size of duties and their dynamics on the state of the peasant economy. What type of peasant economy and how it reacts to different duties. This task involves the derivation of the correlation coefficient. The correlation coefficient can be the ratio between the size of duty and the number of livestock. Another factor is the ratio between the number of employees and the level of duties.

In the study of this problem, you can see the ratio of the coefficients.

8. Regression method.

Within the framework of the regression method, we must determine the comparative role of various causes in a particular process. For example, the decline of the nobility. In order to assess the reasons for its decline, regression coefficients are derived: the ratio of the quantitative composition of families to their wealth, the ratio of households below a certain level of income and above it. The regression method is a variation of the correlation method.

Thus, quantitative analysis helps to identify and characterize important features and signs of phenomena, makes understanding more accurate (departure from the wording "better or worse").