Russian historiography. Methods of studying history and modern historical science Modern historical science in brief

History studies the traces of human activity. The object is a person.

Functions historical knowledge:

Scientific and educational

Prognostic

Educational

Social memory

The method (research method) shows how cognition occurs, on what methodological basis, on what scientific principles. A method is a way of research, a way of constructing and justifying knowledge. More than two thousand years ago, two main approaches to historical thought arose that still exist today: the idealistic and materialistic understanding of history.

Representatives of the idealistic concept in history believe that spirit and consciousness are primary and more important than matter and nature. Thus, they argue that the human soul and mind determine the pace and nature of historical development, and other processes, including in the economy, are secondary, derived from the spirit. Thus, idealists conclude that the basis of the historical process is the spiritual and moral improvement of people, and human society is developed by man himself, while man’s abilities are given by God.

Supporters of the materialist concept argued and maintain the opposite: since material life is primary in relation to the consciousness of people, it is economic structures, processes and phenomena in society that determine all spiritual development and other relationships between people.

For Western historical science An idealistic approach is more typical; for the domestic one, a materialistic approach is more typical. Modern historical science is based on the dialectical-materialist method, which considers social development as a natural historical process, which is determined by objective laws and at the same time is influenced by the subjective factor through the activities of the masses, classes, political parties, leaders, and leaders.

There are also special historical methods research:

chronological – provides for the presentation of historical material in chronological order;

synchronous – involves the simultaneous study of events occurring in society;

dichronic – periodization method;

historical modeling;

statistical method.

2. Methods of studying history and modern historical science.

Empirical and theoretical levels knowledge.

Historical and logical

Abstraction and absolutization

Analysis and synthesis

Deduction and induction, etc.

1.Historical and genetic development

2.Historical-comparative

3.historical-typological classification

4.historical-systemic method (everything is in the system)

5. Biographical, problematic, chronological, problem-chronological.

Modern historical science differs from the historical science of all previous eras in that it develops in a new information space, borrowing its methods from it and itself influences its formation. Now the task of not just writing historical works on this or that topic is coming to the fore, but creating verified history, verified by large and reliable databases created by the efforts of creative teams.

Features of modern historical science.

1. Sociocultural development

2. Spiritual and mental foundations

3. Ethno-demographic features

4. Natural geographical features

5. Political and economic aspects

6. Providentialism (by the will of God)

7. Physiocrats (natural phenomena, not God, but man)

8. Geographical, public, social factors.

9. Interdisciplinary approaches (social anthropology, gender studies).

3. Humanity in the primitive era.

Primitive society (also prehistoric society) is a period in human history before the invention of writing, after which the possibility of historical research based on the study of written sources appears. In a broad sense, the word “prehistoric” is applicable to any period before the invention of writing, starting from the beginning of the Universe (about 14 billion years ago), but in a narrow sense - only to the prehistoric past of man.

Periods of development of primitive society

In the 40s of the 20th century, Soviet scientists Efimenko, Kosven, Pershits and others proposed systems for the periodization of primitive society, the criterion of which was the evolution of forms of ownership, the degree of division of labor, family relationships etc. In generalized form, such periodization can be represented as follows:

1. the era of the primitive herd;

2. the era of the tribal system;

3. the era of the decomposition of the communal-tribal system (the emergence of cattle breeding, plow farming and metal processing, the emergence of elements of exploitation and private property).

Stone Age

The Stone Age is the oldest period in human history, when the main tools and weapons were made mainly from stone, but wood and bone were also used. At the end of the Stone Age, the use of clay spread (dishes, brick buildings, sculpture).

Periodization of the Stone Age:

Paleolithic:

The Lower Paleolithic is the period of the emergence of the most ancient species of people and the widespread spread of Homo erectus.

The Middle Paleolithic is a period of displacement by evolutionarily more advanced species of people, including modern humans. Neanderthals dominated Europe throughout the Middle Paleolithic.

The Upper Paleolithic is the period of dominance of the modern species of people throughout the globe during the era of the last glaciation.

Mesolithic and Epipaleolithic; The period is characterized by the development of technology for the production of stone tools and general human culture. There is no ceramics.

Neolithic is the era of the emergence of agriculture. Tools and weapons are still made of stone, but their production is being brought to perfection, and ceramics are widely distributed.

Copper Age

The Copper Age, Copper-Stone Age, Chalcolithic or Chalcolithic is a period in the history of primitive society, a transitional period from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age. Approximately covers the period 4-3 thousand BC. e., but in some territories it exists longer, and in some it is absent altogether. Most often, the Chalcolithic is included in the Bronze Age, but is sometimes considered a separate period. During the Eneolithic, copper tools were common, but stone ones still predominated.

Bronze Age

The Bronze Age is a period in the history of primitive society, characterized by the leading role of bronze products, which was associated with the improvement of the processing of metals such as copper and tin obtained from ore deposits, and the subsequent production of bronze from them. The Bronze Age is the second, later phase of the Early Metal Age, which replaced the Copper Age and preceded the Iron Age. In general, the chronological framework of the Bronze Age: 5-6 thousand years BC. e.

Iron Age

The Iron Age is a period in the history of primitive society, characterized by the spread of iron metallurgy and the manufacture of iron tools. Bronze Age civilizations go beyond the history of primitive society; other peoples' civilization takes shape during the Iron Age.

The term "Iron Age" is usually applied to the "barbarian" cultures of Europe that existed simultaneously with the great civilizations of antiquity (Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome, Parthia). The “barbarians” were distinguished from ancient cultures by the absence or rare use of writing, and therefore information about them has reached us either from archaeological data or from mentions in ancient sources. On the territory of Europe during the Iron Age, M. B. Shchukin identified six “barbarian worlds”:

Celts (La Tène culture);

Proto-Germans (mainly Jastorf culture + southern Scandinavia);

mostly Proto-Baltic cultures of the forest zone (possibly including Proto-Slavs);

proto-Finno-Ugric and proto-Sami cultures of the northern forest zone (mainly along rivers and lakes);

steppe Iranian-speaking cultures (Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.);

pastoral-agricultural cultures of the Thracians, Dacians and Getae.

I love history. I do this: I write and publish articles and monographs. However, like any person associated with history, I cannot raise the question of its scientific nature, or rather, scientific character of the Russian mainstream of history .
This is unclear specifically studies history. Yes, the classic answer will come - the historical process. Wonderful, super. And what is it? Ah yes, human activity superimposed on a timeline. And here the first (and key) difficulty arises: There are a number of sciences that study human activity. The struggle for power - political science, behavioral aspects - psychology, management - economics, relations in the international arena - international relations, the struggle for power - political science. Each of these sciences has developed its own methodology, its own theories, and principles. And here it turns out that there is no place left for the classical historian, because a political scientist must scientifically judge the political struggle during the First World War in Russia (this is a perverted idea in Russia that every old woman and every drunkard under the fence can judge the struggle for power; in the West, political science has received scientific development: with a powerful theoretical and methodological base, with sometimes even hyper-attention to mathematical methods; with active borrowing from related disciplines; I am already silent about the fact that a number of political scientists by education received Nobel Prizes in economics), study economic foundations of serfdom - economist (or political economist), etc. In fact we can talk about history of something, about capsizing modern sciences to the past. What should a historian do? doesn't own fully methods of none of these sciences ? The answer regarding synthesis and general evolution does not sound convincing: interdisciplinarity is not an easy thing, it also requires (!) a powerful philosophical base. And very often in reality it turns out that history in Russia turns into the creativity of “bespectacled men and women” who, armed common sense, historical approach, by critical analysis of documents, they began to judge the past. It’s especially funny when, without proper personal social experience(you can’t get it in libraries and archives), they “cut down” such great figures of their eras as Peter 1, Witte or Stolypin. Few people think about what they can learn and what they cannot; what theoretical premises should be used; what methods they use, what these methods allow you to see, and what they don’t; where there is research error, etc.
Of course, history has its own methodology. True, it is not adequate for conducting economic, sociological or political analysis. Moreover, it is not adequate for analyzing the development of the historical process as a whole. And in general: how many professional historians study namely the historical process? The vast majority concentrate on their favorite narrow topics, and how the historical process develops is sidelined.
All historical methods are good for only one thing: reconstruction events(Although Often It turns out that talking about methodology is one thing, but conducting specific research is another). In fact, history turns into a set of facts, excellent empirical basis for other sciences, no more. Yes, historians try to look for cause-and-effect relationships, but most do it within the framework unscientific narrative logic: what happened before is the cause, what happened later is the effect. Plus some of my thoughts on the topic. Nothing complicated: the scientific article (or monograph) is ready. If you write something interesting on the cover, you can make money.
Of course, not everyone does this. There are many works that are written with the actual application of methods of other sciences, which ultimately result in serious research. But there are only a few of them. By the way, I am impressed by the Soviet historical school, where history had a number of strong general theoretical and methodological foundations, which had positive results. Unfortunately, the dominance of one methodology and its too skeletal understanding often produced works that were absurd in content....
And again: the point of science is to create new knowledge relevant to modern times . Of course, historians like to postulate that without knowledge of the past you cannot know the future. But they did not say how to explain the present or predict the future by looking into the past: how to develop a rigorous scientific methodology to make such transitions. The maximum that historians are capable of: conducting analogies(without asking the question: are they appropriate?). But this is not science. That's it for the arsenal traditional the domestic historian has been exhausted. After all, even intuitively it is clear to everyone, in order to understand the present one must first look closely currently(and many sciences operate in this field). I’m already silent, because in addition to complex theoretical constructs, you need to know both the past and the present (and the latter is the problem of many traditional historians). Of course, we all understand: knowing history is useful, it must explain something. But here's to install theoretically based Only a few have been able to make a connection (which rests on more than “I see it this way”) between the past and the present. And almost all of them are not classical historians at all. First of all, this is the brilliant Marx. Among others is our economist Kondratiev with his “long cycles”. Among historians, one can recall Toynbee. But all of these are brilliant (or very outstanding) people. Most historians are interested in creating such smart products is not capable, and apparently, and does not strive for this ( although they are indignant at why they are not paid enough there - not a single good economist or sociologist will make such statements, which is significant).
As a result, we get:
a) historians approach history without special methods of analysis, thereby engaging in a mechanical reconstruction of events, rather than actual analysis (the analysis carried out must be questioned due to ignorance of the methodology special disciplines), however it is very useful for other sciences;
b) the knowledge obtained by traditional historians is largely useless for us, because we have not yet answered the question: how can they be adequately applied to modern times (this question requires scientific and methodological development, and not a superficial answer).
P.S. Of course, not all historians correspond to what is described above. There are also pleasant exceptions. But we have few of them in Russia.
P.P.S Plus history can perform another important function for the country: ideological and education of patriotism (and also form the basis collective memory), however, this (by and large) does not require serious and in-depth research (often, they are dangerous) - myths are enough. Most historians do not agree with this.

Historiography of Russian history - this is the description Russian history and historical literature. This is the history of historical science as a whole, its branch, a set of studies devoted to a specific era or topic.

Scientific coverage of Russian history begins in the 18th century, when knowledge about the past, previously contained in the form of scattered information, began to be systematized and generalized. Historical science was freed from divine providence and received an increasingly realistic explanation.

First treatise according to the history of Russia belonged Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev(1686-1750) - the largest noble historian of the era of Peter I. His major work “Russian History from the Most Ancient Times” covered history in 5 volumes Russian state.

Speaking as a champion of a strong monarchy, V.N. Tatishchev was the first to formulate the state scheme of Russian history, highlighting several of its stages: from complete “single power” (from Rurik to Mstislav), through the “aristocracy of the appanage period” (1132-1462) to “the restoration of the monarchy under John the Great III and its strengthening under Peter I at the beginning of the 18th century."

Mikhail Vasilievich Lomonosov(1711 - 1765) - author of a number of works on Russian history (“A Brief Russian Chronicler with Genealogy”; “Ancient Russian History”), in which he initiated the struggle against the Norman theory of the formation of the ancient Russian state. This theory, as you know, was created by the Germans Bayer and Miller and substantiated the inability of the supposedly ignorant Slavs to create their own statehood and called on the Varangians for this.

M.V. Lomonosov presented a number of arguments that refuted the speculations of German scientists. He proved the antiquity of the “Rus” tribe, which preceded the calling of Rurik, and showed the originality of Slavic settlements in Eastern Europe. The scientist drew attention to an important fact: the name “Rus” was extended to those Slavic tribes to which the Varangians had nothing to do. M.V. Lomonosov pointed out the absence of Scandinavian and Germanic words in the Russian language, which would be inevitable given the role that the Normanists ascribe to the Scandinavians.

The first major work on the history of the Russian state belonged to Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin(1766-1826) - a prominent historian, writer and publicist. At the end of 1803, Karamzin offered Alexander I his services to write a complete history of Russia, “not barbaric and shameful for his reign.” The proposal was accepted. Karamzin was officially entrusted with writing the history of Russia and a pension was established as a member of public service. Karamzin devoted his entire subsequent life mainly to the creation of the “History of the Russian State” (12 volumes). The central idea of ​​labor: autocratic rule is the best form of statehood for Russia.

Karamzin put forward the idea that “Russia was founded by victories and unity of command, perished from discord and was saved by a wise autocracy.” This approach was the basis for the periodization of the history of the Russian state.

In it, the scientist identified six periods:

• “the introduction of monarchical power” - from the “calling of the Varangian princes” to Svyatopolk Vladimirovich (862-1015);
• “fading of autocracy” - from Svyatopolk Vladimirovich to Yaroslav II Vsevolodovich (1015-1238);
• “the death of the Russian state and the gradual “state revival of Russia” - from Yaroslav 11 Vsevolodovich to Ivan 111 (1238-1462);
• “establishment of autocracy” - from Ivan III to Ivan IV (1462-1533);
• restoration of the “unique power of the tsar” and the transformation of autocracy into tyranny - from Ivan IV (the Terrible) to Boris Godunov (1533-1598);
• « Time of Troubles" - from Boris Godunov to Mikhail Romanov (1598-1613)."

Sergei Mikhailovich Soloviev(1820-1879) - head of the department of Russian history at Moscow University (since 1845), author of a unique encyclopedia of Russian history, a multi-volume major work “History of Russia from Ancient Times”. The principle of his research is historicism. He does not divide the history of Russia into periods, but connects them, considers the development of Russia and Western Europe as a unity. Soloviev reduces the pattern of development of the country to three defining conditions: “the nature of the country”, “the nature of the tribe”, “the course of external events”.

In periodization, the scientist “erases” the concepts of “Varangian” period, “Mongolian” and appanage.

The first stage of Russian history from ancient times to the 16th century. inclusively determined by the struggle of the “tribal principle” through “patrimonial relations” to “state life”.

The second stage (XVII - mid-XVII century) - “preparation” for a new order of things and the “era of Peter I”, “era of transformations”.

The third stage (second half of the 17th - second half of the 19th century) is a direct continuation and completion of Peter’s reforms.

In the 50s XIX century A state (legal) school in Russian historiography emerged. It was the product of bourgeois liberalism, its reluctance to repeat Western revolutions in Russia. In this regard, liberals turned to the ideal of a strong state power. The founder of the state school was a professor at Moscow University (lawyer, historian, idealist philosopher) Boris Nikolaevich Chicherin (1828-1904).

Prominent Russian, historian Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky(1841 - 1911) adhered to the positivist "theory of facts". He identified “three main forces that build human society”: the human personality, human society, and the nature of the country. Klyuchevsky considered “mental labor and moral achievement” to be the engine of historical progress. In the development of Russia, Klyuchevsky recognized the enormous role of the state (political factor), attached great importance the process of colonization (natural factor), trade (economic factor).

In his “Course of Russian History,” Klyuchevsky gave a periodization of the country’s past. It is based on geographical, economic and social characteristics, which, in his opinion, determined the content of historical periods. However, they were dominated by the state scheme.

The entire Russian historical process - from ancient times to the reforms of the 60s. XIX century Klyuchevsky divided into four periods:

• “Rusdneprovskaya, city, trading” (from the 8th to the 13th centuries). In the first period, the main arena of activity of the Slavs was the Dnieper region. The emergence of the state Eastern Slavs the author did not connect with the Normans, noting the existence of principalities among them long before the appearance of the Varangians;
• “Rus of the Upper Volga, appanage princely, free agricultural” (XII - mid-XV centuries). Characterizing the second period, Klyuchevsky idealized princely power and exaggerated its organizing role;
• "Great Rus'. Moscow, royal-boyar, military-agricultural" (XV - early XVII centuries). The third period of Russian history is associated with Great Russia, covering vast areas not only of Eastern Europe, but also Asia. At this time, a strong state unification of Rus' was created for the first time;
• “All-Russian, imperial, noble” - the period of serfdom - agricultural and factory (XVII - mid-XIX centuries). This is the time of further expansion of Great Russia and the formation of the Russian Empire. The transformations of Peter I were considered by the author as the main feature of this period, but Klyuchevsky showed duality in his assessment of them. Klyuchevsky influenced the formation of historical views of both bourgeois historians (P.N. Milyukov, M.M. Bogoslovsky, A.A. Kiesewetter), and Marxist historians (M.N. Pokrovsky, Yu.V. Gauthier, S. .V. Bakhrushin).

In Soviet historiography, periodization was based on a formational approach, according to which in Russian history the following were distinguished:

• Primitive communal system (until the 9th century).
• Feudalism (IX - mid-XIX centuries).
• Capitalism (second half of the 19th century - 1917).
• Socialism (since 1917).

Within the framework of these formational periods of national history, certain stages were identified that revealed the process of origin and development of the socio-economic formation.

Thus, the “feudal” period was divided into three stages:

• “early feudalism” (Kievan Rus);
• “developed feudalism” (feudal fragmentation and the formation of a Russian centralized state);
• “late feudalism” (“new period of Russian history”, decomposition and crisis of feudal-serf relations).

The period of capitalism fell into two stages - “pre-monopoly capitalism” and “imperialism”. In Soviet history, the stages of “war communism”, “new economic policy”, “building the foundations of socialism”, “complete and final victory of socialism” and “development of socialism on its own basis” were distinguished.

In the post-perestroika period, in connection with the transition to a pluralistic interpretation of national history, there was a reassessment of both its individual events and entire periods and stages. In this regard, there is, on the one hand, a return to the periodizations of Solovyov, Klyuchevsky and other pre-revolutionary historians, on the other, attempts are being made to give a periodization in accordance with new values ​​and methodological approaches.

Thus, a periodization of Russian history appeared from the point of view of the alternativeness of its historical development, considered in the context of world history.

Some historians propose to distinguish two periods in Russian history:

• “From Ancient Rus' to Imperial Russia” (IX - XVIII centuries);
• “The Rise and Decline of the Russian Empire” (XIX - XX centuries).

Historians of Russian statehood highlight ten of her

periods. This periodization is due to several factors. The main ones are the socio-economic structure of society (the level of economic and technical development, forms of ownership) and factor state development:

• Ancient Rus' (IX-XII centuries);
• The period of independent feudal states Ancient Rus'(XII-XV centuries);
• Russian (Moscow) state (XV-XVII centuries);
• Russian empire the period of absolutism (XVIII - mid-XIX centuries);
• Russian Empire during the period of transition to the bourgeois monarchy (mid-19th - early 20th centuries);
• Russia during the period of the bourgeois-democratic republic (February - October 1917);
• The period of formation of Soviet statehood (1918-1920);
• Transition period and NEP period (1921 - 1930);
• The period of state-party socialism (1930 - early 60s of the XX century);
• The period of crisis of socialism (60-90s of the XX century).

This periodization, like any other, is conditional, but it allows us to systematize the training course to a certain extent and consider the main stages of the formation of statehood in Russia.

Historical science has accumulated extensive experience in creating works on the history of Russia. Numerous works published in various years both in the country and abroad reflect various concepts of the historical development of Russia, its relationship with the world historical process.

In recent years, fundamental works on the history of Russia by major pre-revolutionary historians have been republished, including the works of S.M. Solovyova, N.M. Karamzina, V.O. Klyuchevsky and others. The works of B.A. were published. Rybakova, B.D. Grekova, S.D. Bakhrusheva, M.N. Tikhomirova, M.P. Pokrovsky, A.N. Sakharova, Yu.N. Afanasyeva and others. This list can be continued.

Today we have works on the history of Russia that are interesting in content, which are available to everyone who is interested in history and strives for a deep study of it.

It must be taken into account that the study of the history of the Fatherland must take place in the context of world history. Students of history must understand such concepts as historical civilizations, their characteristic features, the place of individual formations in the world historical process, the path of development of Russia and its place in the world historical process.

When studying the history of Russia in the context of world historical processes, it is necessary to take into account that the traditional idea of ​​\u200b\u200babroads today has radically changed. The historical reality is such that we are faced with such concepts as “near abroad” and “far abroad”. In the recent past, these distinctions did not exist.

Topic 29. Characteristics of the state of historical science in Russia at the present stage.

1.The entry of the Russian historical community into world historical science. Common problems.

2. The gap and continuity of Russian and Soviet historical science.

3. Development of theoretical and methodological issues.

4. Topics, problems, directions and prospects of modern historical research in Russia.

Literature:

Dashkova T. Gender issues: approaches to description.//Historical research in Russia - II. Seven years later / Ed. G.A. Bordyugova. – M.: AIRO-XX, 2003.P.203-245.

Historical research in Russia: trends recent years. M., 1996//Edited by G.A. Bordyugova.

History of Everyday Life: Collection scientific works. St. Petersburg, 2003.

Krom M.M. Historical anthropology. St. Petersburg, 2004.

Krom M. National history from an anthropological perspective. .//Historical Research in Russia – II.Seven Years Later / Ed. G.A. Bordyugova. – M.: AIRO-XX, 2003.P. 179-202.

Kravtsov V.N. Transformation of the foundations of professionalism of historical knowledge in the modern historiographic process.//Images of historiography: Collection of articles /Scientific. ed. A.P. Logunov. M.: RGGU, 2000.

Myths and mythology in modern Russia/Edited by K. Aimermacher, F. Bomsdorf, G. Bordyugov. M., 2003.

Naumova G.R. Historiography of Russian history: textbook. aid for students Higher educational institutions / G.R.Naumova, A.E.Shiklo. M., 2009. P.225-240.

Sokolov A.K. The path to a modern laboratory for studying the modern history of Russia.//History and philosophy of Russian historical science. M., 2007. P.275-341

Chubaryan A.O. Historical science in Russia at the beginning of the 21st century // New and Contemporary History 2003. No. 3.

1. In your opinion, what are the gaps and continuities between Russian and Soviet historical science?

2. How are modern Russian and foreign historical sciences connected?

3. What theoretical and methodological issues are being developed by modern Russian historians?

4. Describe the topics, problems, directions and prospects of modern historical research in Russia.

Topic 30. B.N. Mironov.

Seminar lesson:

1. “Social history of Russia during the imperial period” as the first generalizing study of social history in world historiography.

2. Methodology for researching the social history of Russia.

3.Modernization concept of Russian history B.N. Mironov.

4. Revision of B.N. Mironov established the established provisions of Soviet historiography on the role of the autocracy in social changes, its relationship with the public, etc.

Literature:

Getrel P., Macy D., Friz G. Social history as metahistory.// Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003., vol. 1, pp. I – XIV.

Discussion around the “Social history of Russia during the imperial period.” // Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003., vol. 1, pp. XV-XL.

Mironov B.N. Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII - early XX centuries): in 2 volumes, 3rd ed. Correction, add. – St. Petersburg: “Dmitry Bulanin”, 2003.

Test tasks, problematic questions and exercises:

1.What methodological approaches and principles does Mironov use to study the social history of Russia? What are the advantages of these approaches and principles and what are their limitations?

2. What are the main provisions of B.N.’s concept of Russian history? Mironov. What are the features of the history of Russia and the features of modernization in Russia?

3. What established provisions of Soviet historiography are refuted by B.N. Mironov? Read one of the chapters of “Social History of Russia” and analyze how B.N. Mironov achieves a revision of traditional ideas.

4. What are the causes and nature of the October Revolution according to the concept of B.N. Mironov?

5. How does B.N. Mironov characterize and evaluate Soviet modernization?

6. What are the prospects for the historical development of Russia from the perspective of B.N. Mironov’s historical concept?

7. What ideas of pre-revolutionary Russian, Soviet, post-Soviet and foreign historians does the author of “Social History of Russia” rely on?

Boris Nikolaevich Mironov

Biographical information. B. N. Mironov entered the Faculty of Economics of St. Petersburg in 1959 state university. In 1961 he was expelled from the university for anti-Marxist views. In the same year, the rector of the university A.D. Alexandrov was restored by a student at the Faculty of History. After graduating from the history department in 1965, he served in the army. In 1966 he entered graduate school at the Leningrad branch of the Institute of History of the USSR. In 1969 he defended his candidate's dissertation, in 1984 his doctorate. Since 1970, he has worked at the St. Petersburg Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences and teaches at St. Petersburg universities and abroad. Author of seven books and more than a hundred articles, many of which were published abroad.

“Social history of Russia during the imperial period (XVIII – early XX centuries). Genesis of the individual, democratic family, civil society and the rule of law.” The main scientific work of B.N. Mironov is dedicated to social history. The so-called “new social history” refers to the research arsenal of sociology in describing the internal state of society, its individual groups and the relations between them. She was born in the second half of the twentieth century.

Social history introduces approaches borrowed from anthropology and social psychology. An integral component of the analysis social system becomes a reconstruction of a picture of the world characteristic of a given human community or a set of images, ideas, values ​​that guided the behavior of members of a particular social group.

Particular attention in social history is paid to the content side of the consciousness of people who shape social reality through their actions. Therefore, social history is also the history of mentalities. Under mentalities, as noted by B.N. Mironov, this refers to socio-psychological stereotypes, automatisms of consciousness and habits laid down by upbringing and cultural traditions, value orientations, significant ideas and views that belong not to individuals, but to one or another class or social group.

One of the guiding principles of social history has become interdisciplinarity: “the use of concepts, concepts and methodology of sociology, political economy, geography, anthropology, psychology, demography, statistics, political science.”

Social history does not describe events in their sequence. Social history analyzes primarily durable social structures, systems, institutions, long-term social processes and phenomena. Society is viewed as an integral organism in which all elements interact in a complex system of resonant, direct and feedback, excluding the possibility of reduction and finding any one that can determine the entire historical development. Social history is based on a structuralist approach. Mironov follows him and builds a model and interprets the fundamental processes and forces that changed Russian society and the state during the imperial period. The study consists of two parts: – the first deals with social dynamics, the second deals with law, state and civil society. At the same time, he finds “a certain degree of historical inevitability” (progress) in the development of Russia, but does not specifically indicate what controls this process.

Social history is understood and conceptualized in the spirit of modernization. Mironov does not limit himself to the imperial period and provides a meta-description of Russian history to demonstrate its “normality.” By identifying patterns in the social development of certain areas of demography, family structure, etc. the author shows that Russia, although with some delay, followed the general development pattern characteristic of Western Europe.

The fact that Russia lags behind Western Europe, according to Mironov, does not mean that it is a backward country. Mironov notes that psychologists have the concept of “socially neglected child.” This child was born normal, but in a difficult family. The poor parents drank and did not take care of the child, so his development was slowed down. The child’s mental development is delayed and he cannot cope with the curriculum at school. But under favorable circumstances, a socially neglected child can catch up with the bulk of his peers, but not the best. According to Mironov, saying that Russia is a backward country is the same as calling it a socially neglected child. So in the Kiev era, the Russians were normal Europeans, but in the middle of the 13th century. For 250 years she found herself in the difficult conditions of the Mongol-Tatar yoke (a difficult childhood). Having freed itself from the yoke, Russia fell under serfdom for 250 years (a difficult adolescence). This has slowed everything down and made Russia underdeveloped, which cannot catch up with its peers from Western European countries. Mironov does not agree with this approach.

The historian says that Russia is going through the same processes belatedly, but not because it is mentally retarded or socially neglected, but because Russia as a state and civilization was simply born later than Western European ones. Kievan Rus was no longer a feudal state in the European sense of the concept. Feudal features appeared several centuries later in the 13th – 16th centuries. But Russia has always, at least for the last thousand years, when statehood arose, fled as fast as its neighbors in the West. Therefore, the scientist asserts: Russia is not backward, but a young and rapidly growing country, and comparing it with Western Europe is like comparing an adult and a teenager.

Mironov insists on the untenability of the idea of ​​the uniqueness of Russia's historical development. Despite periodic crises and deviations, from the point of view of B.N. Mironov, Russia as a whole followed the path of modernization together with the West.

The main difference between Russia and Europe is the asynchrony of development, and not the essence of the development process. The autocracy sought to speed up the process of development and introduced incredible tension into social life. This was the case during the implementation of the Soviet modernization project.

The scientist gives a favorable forecast regarding the future of Russia if it continues its development according to the Western European model and in due time achieves prosperity and the rule of law and civil society are established.

The author strives, avoiding both negativism and apologetics regarding national achievements, to reconsider many provisions and myths of Russian historiography that are not positive in relation to our history. Particularly unlucky in our historiography, as Mironov emphasizes, are Russian reformers and government policies. Their achievements were underestimated and even devalued. For example: the abolition of serfdom in 1861 is not considered an achievement, since in Western Europe it happened several centuries earlier and better. Mironov suggests looking at this problem more broadly and deeply, from the point of view of compliance public policy economic, social, psychological and other opportunities of society. And also think about what would happen if the Western European model were implemented in Russia. Moreover, the reasons for negative assessments own history Mironov sees the fact that they were created in the era of society’s struggle against the authoritarianism of state power in the name of establishing a legal society and state in Russia in pre-revolutionary historiography and then were picked up by Soviet historiography. The historian notes: nihilistic sentiments among the intelligentsia have always been in fashion in Russia (here there is a clear analogy of Mironov’s idea with the thoughts of the so-called “conservative” historians on this matter), condemn Russian customs and history was and is still considered good manners, even if there is no reason for it.

Mironov refutes the provisions that:

Russia was typical colonial empire which oppressed the peoples inhabiting it.

Russian society was closed.

The Russians did not know self-government.

Serfdom blocked the socio-economic development of the country.

Russia was ruled not by laws, but by people.

The state and bureaucracy did not care about society and the people.

All or almost all reforms were untenable.

Autocracy in the 18th – 20th centuries. was an institution that hindered the development of the country.

Arbitrariness reigned in the courts.

The author writes that social institutions became more “rational” and relied more and more on certain legal norms rather than on custom and tradition. Narrow and limited social interaction changed to increasingly open and widespread. Real merit, not privilege, became the basis for promotion. Personality was given greater opportunities for expression, individuals successfully asserted their dignity and protested against corporate interference in personal life, whether this interference was based on the power of the patriarch within the extended family or on the power of the traditional land community. Or other corporate institutions.

Autocracy was a positive and driving force social change in the country, going, as a rule, ahead of society. The autocracy for the most part worked in cooperation with the public. Basically, during the imperial period, the modernization process was successful. At the beginning of the twentieth century. Russia had become a de jure legal state, and civil society was in the process of formation. Why did the autocratic state fail to survive the First World War? The fact is that modernization progressed successfully with the leading role of the state, and was restrained by the people, who also participated in this process, but their mentality changed extremely slowly. This strengthened the gap between the Europeanized elite and the people and gave rise to asynchrony and tension in social processes and phenomena. The revolution, from Mironov’s point of view, was a natural phenomenon. Revolution is a normal, even positive reaction, as a temporary social disaster of modernization, designed to harmonize traditional Russian values ​​with the values ​​of a market economy. The October Revolution was not the Marxist progressive revolution that the revolutionaries believed they were fighting for, but rather a revolution against modernization and in defense of tradition. However, the Soviet government continued the modernization process and created conditions that ensured a peaceful transition to the final stage of modernization, the formation of an open and democratic society.

Specialists are amazed by the book’s huge source base. The author relies on the methodology and achievements of pre-revolutionary Russian, Soviet, post-Soviet, American, Canadian, Australian and European scientists, as well as on his own research on a wide range of problems in the archives and libraries of Russia. The scientist mastered the array of accumulated data on the social history of Russia and creatively processed them based on his own concept. Mironov is fluent in cliometrics and provides extensive statistical data. His work has an unprecedented scholarly apparatus, including footnotes, an alphabetical bibliography, a subject index and an index of names, illustrations, and tables.

However, we must not forget that the modernization model is one of the possible in representing the dynamics of society. It tends to view the past through the prism of the dichotomies tradition/modernity, staticity/mobility, which does not limit understanding and minimizes the search for the originality of Russia's historical development. In addition, even foreign experts note that the concept of “normality” in the historical development of Russia is dangerously close to the absolutization of Western European and American standards of political and social development. It is not axiomatic that this Western model is desirable and that it is destined for a long life.

Exam questions:

1. The state of historical consciousness and the historical and scientific community of Russia in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

2. St. Petersburg and Moscow schools of historians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

3. D.I. Ilovaisky (scientific interests, methodological orientations, general concept of Russian history, etc.)

4. Phenomenon N.I. Kostomarov in Russian historiography.

5. V.O. Klyuchevsky. Main works and ideas.

6. V.O. Klyuchevsky about the subject and method of historical knowledge.

7. V.O. Klyuchevsky. "The course of Russian history and its concept." Concept of Russian history.

8. History of Russia in the 19th century. in the works of A.A. Kornilov.

9. Vlad in historical science A.A. Kiesewetter.

10. P.N. Miliukov as a public figure and historian. Continuity and novelty in his historical and scientific work. The history of Russia as the history of Russian culture.

11. S.F. Platonov Peculiarities of personality and historical and scientific creativity.

12. S.F. Platonov “Lectures on Russian history” (theoretical, methodological and conceptual foundations).

13. S.F. Platonov. The concept of the history of the Time of Troubles in Russia.

14. A.E. Presnyakov as a representative of scientific realism.

15. Works of A.E. Presnyakov on history Kievan Rus, Great Russian state.

16. Eurocentrism in the concept of Russian history E.F. Shmurlo

17. Study of feudalism in the works of N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky.

18. Contribution of N.P. Pavlov-Silvansky.in the study of the history of social movements.

19. Masters of the biographical genre in historical research– N.K. Schilder and Grand Duke Nikolai Mikhailovich.

20. Historian-diplomat S.S. Tatishchev.

21. Historical concept of K.N. Leontyev.

22. Historical concept of L.A. Tikhomirov.

23. Methodology and philosophy of history in the works of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.

24. Historical concept of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.

25. Development of theoretical and methodological foundations of source study A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky.

26. Marxism and pre-revolutionary historical science.

27. “Legal Marxism.” Dispute about the role of violence in history. P.B. Struve, M.I. Tugan-Baranovsky and others.

28. “Subjective school” in Russian historiography. P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky and others.

29. Historiosophy V.S. Solovyova.

30. N.I. Berdyaev as a representative of the religious and philosophical paradigm of history.

31. Eurasian concept of Russian history (G.V. Vernadsky, N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitsky, R.O. Yakobson)

32. general characteristics historical science in the Soviet period.

a. Periodization of historical science of the Soviet period.

33. Secular historical science in the 1920s–1930s.

34. Sociological method of studying the historical process in the works of N.A. Rozhkova.

35. M.N. Pokrovsky and his role in the formation of the Marxist face of historical science.

36. B.D. Grekov, M.N. Tikhomirov, L.V. Cherepnin as researchers of the history of ancient and medieval Rus'.

37. M.N. Druzhinin as a researcher of the peasant question in Russia.

38. A.L. Sidorov. The personality of the historian and the priorities of scientific research.

39. M.V. Nechkina. Contribution to the study revolutionary movement, history of historical science and popularization of historical knowledge.

40. P.A. Zayonchkovsky. Themes and features of the historian’s work.

41. I.D. Kovalchenko is a methodologist, source scientist, historical researcher.

42. L.N. Gumilev. The theory of ethnogenesis and the concept of Russian history.

43. Domestic historiography of the second half of the 80s - early 90s.

44. Current state historical science in Russia.

45. B.N. Mironov. Social history of Russia.

46. ​​I.Ya. Froyanov is a researcher of Ancient and Medieval Rus'. Works on modern history Russia.

Trans...(from Latin trans- through, through, for) the first part of compound words meaning here: 1). Movement through any space, crossing it; 2). Designation of transmission through something. The second part of the complex word “form” means that the correspondence of manifestations of the same characteristics or different characteristics in the same manifestations is carried out through and in a new configuration of connections, the highest configuration of which is Meaning.

The disintegration of the “integral personality” occurs not only as a result of normatively and procedurally organized thinking techniques, but also as a result of specialization and technologization of material production. The issue of turning a person into an appendage of a machine in the conditions of differentiated capitalist production was actively discussed by representatives of the “subjective school” (P.L. Lavrov, N.K. Mikhailovsky, N.I. Kareev, etc.) Subspecialist Mikhailovsky likened it to a “toe.”

See Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of creativity. – Kharkov: Folio, M.: AST, 2002.P.36.

In states of co-existence, a presentational, integral and world-forming connection appears as one that is born, emerges and forms.

In Russian philosophy, the idea of ​​a break in continuity was put forward by representatives of the Moscow philosophical and mathematical school in the theory of arrhythmology long before M. Foucault. In the sphere of thinking, arrhythmology, in contrast to analytics, manifests itself in a creative act - insight, intuitive grasp of meaning, in the social sphere - in catastrophes, revolutions, upheavals that interrupt linear evolution. Arrhythmology can be understood as the emergence of new impulsive centers with their inherent rhythms, redistribution of energy and a new adjustment of rhythms in general.

In Western historiography, the primacy in the conceptual formulation of the principle of multifactorial historical development belongs to the French historical school of the Annales.

Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history / L.P. Karsavin. – St. Petersburg: JSC Komplekt. 2003. P.31.

Karsavin L.P. Philosophy of history / L.P. Karsavin. – St. Petersburg: JSC Komplekt. 2003.P.97-98.

Klyuchevsky V.O. Russian history: Complete course of lectures. T.1. / V.O. Klyuchevsky - Mn.: Harvest, 2003. P.16.

See Leontyeva O.B. Marxism in Russia at the turn of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Problems of methodology of history and theory of the historical process / O.B. Leontyev. - Samara: Samara University Publishing House, 2004.

In exile, Russian scientists came up with the concept of Eurasianism.

Berdyaev N.A. The meaning of the story. New Middle Ages / N.A. Berdyaev. – M.: 2002. P.183.

They themselves put forward an ethical criterion of progress, thereby emphasizing the role of mental states in the dynamics of social reality.

See Rumyantseva M.F. Theory of history / M.F. Rumyantseva. – M.: Aspect Press, 2002. P.23-30.

See Koposov N.E. Stop killing cats! Criticism of social sciences / N.E. Koposov. – M.: New Literary Review, 2005.P.142-157.

Various options for a nonlinear “global” or “total” history were proposed by representatives of the “Annals” school.

It should be noted that ideological and political views and knowledge, like any other, are necessarily included in the context of the free and spontaneous activity of the historian. However, the purposeful normative implementation of ideological and political guidelines in historical research reduces its scientific potential.

Ilovaisky was married twice. He buried his first wife and all the children from his first marriage. The last to die in 1890 was daughter Varvara, married to Tsvetaeva. Son-in-law of Ilovaisky I.V. Tsvetaev married for the second time. and in this marriage M.I. Tsvetaeva was born.

Related information.