Economic, social, political processes. Coexistence of various forms of production in the countries of Europe and America. Genesis of capitalism, its concepts. The role of colonial conquests and colonialism in the process of the genesis of capitalism. Formation of the world market. Regions of early and late genesis of capitalism. Ways of development of capitalism in individual countries.

Industry. The rise of manufacturing capitalism. The role of commercial capital in the manufacturing period. Formation of the internal market. Improving the means of communication. Shifts in population.

Agrarian system of Europe and North America. Various types of agrarian evolution in Europe in the 17th-18th centuries. Agrarian dualism and its characteristic features. Capitalist way of life in agriculture.

Slave economy in South and North America. Slavery of the new time, its character and distinctive features.

State political orders. Forms of statehood. Absolutism, the birth of bureaucracy. Estate system.

The impact of economic shifts on traditional urban and rural populations in various European and American countries. Social movements in the period of manufacturing capitalism.

The nobility in the first centuries of the new time, forms of adaptation to the new economic conditions of the XVII-XVIII centuries.

Formation and strengthening of the bourgeoisie, its characteristic features.

culture. The dominant role of the church and religion in the spiritual life at the beginning of the new time. The system and content of education. Literacy Rate. Universities.

Folk culture, its components. Folk holidays, their public function. The attack of the Catholic and Protestant churches on popular culture. Folk culture in modern historiography.

Peculiarities of mass consciousness in early modern times. "Great fear" ("witch hunt") as a socio-psychological phenomenon. European freethinking (“libertinism”).

Scientific revolution. The development of astronomy, mechanics, mathematics and the emergence of a natural-science picture of the world. N. Copernicus, G. Galileo, R. Descartes, I. Newton. Worldview shifts as a consequence of the birth of a new science. Scientific discussions. Spread of private and public scientific societies. Rationalism, its penetration into public consciousness and artistic creativity. Mechanism in social thought of the XVII-XVIII centuries.

The main trends in art and literature. Baroque as a European artistic movement. Classicism. Ideological and aesthetic principles. The rise of classicism in France in the 17th century.

Education. The Enlightenment as a European and American Ideological Movement. Its time and geographical scope. Genres of educational literature.

Socio-political and ideological origins of the Enlightenment. Enlightenment and development of natural science knowledge. Enlightenment and Religion. The main features of enlightenment thought. A look at a person. The theory of "natural law". New ethics. State concept. Social and economic views. Enlightenment as a theory of social reconstruction. The idea of ​​progress Different directions in the Enlightenment, its features in individual countries. The degree of dissemination of the ideas of the Enlightenment in various sectors of society.

Reforms of the second half of the XVIII century. ("Enlightened absolutism"). Absolute monarchy in Europe by the middle of the 18th century. Changes in the state apparatus. Power in the center and locally. Powerful prerogatives of the church and lords. State and Church in Catholic and Protestant European Countries.

"Enlightened absolutism" as a pan-European policy of modernization (self-reformation) of the "old order". Ideological substantiation of the new policy of monarchies.

The program and goals of the reforms, their initiators and conductors. Spheres of reform activity, its common features and differences in individual countries. The results of the policy of "enlightened absolutism".

Approaching the question of the trend in the historical development of mankind, we must first of all recognize that historical development is not a direct and precisely observed line of development. Historical analysis, not seduced by schemes or political biases of any kind, points to a vast number of interacting factors. Monistic theories that attribute exclusive influence to any one factor, whether it be Rousseau's theory of the social contract, or Marx's economic relations, must, following Sorokin's expression, be recognized "a burp of an old philosophy, handed over to the archive with its imaginary uniform laws ..." [Sorokin, "The System of Sociology"].

The assertion of the multiplicity of factors of historical development - pluralism determines the need for extreme caution in determining possible trends in historical development. In the order of a very rough scheme, one can only point out the following basic elements that are part of the process of social development: - family, clan, tribe, nationality, nation, in the future, probably, all of humanity. These elements are the main components of society throughout the history of mankind. They were not always arranged in the order of following one after another, since we sometimes see the processes of disintegration of already established formations.

However, all social groups - family, clan, tribe, nation - have always been not only an association by blood, but united by common work and life. With the growth of these groups and the transition to more complex formations, a more complex process of development takes place within these formations. The process of division of labor begins, life ceases to be unified and common for the whole group, it acquires various characteristic features within the group itself, in accordance with the conditions of life, traditions, customs, etc. If earlier a small group, say, a family, lived a common life and common labor, earned a livelihood, now, for example, in a nation there are a number of diverse groups, united according to various characteristics.

For clarity and completeness of our presentation, it is also necessary to introduce the concept of complete and incomplete social groups.

An incomplete social group performs only one social function and captures only one side of the person included in it, thus being only a part (organ) of a complete social group. This latter combines all the functions, all the creative processes of the incomplete social groups included in it, already fulfilling, as a whole, a common creative task and satisfying both the creative and personal interests and demands of the people covered by it.

Any labor group is always incomplete, since the collective of any enterprise, or, say, Russian scientists, taken all together, perform only certain functions of the common whole and cannot exist without this whole, without being supplemented by other, also incomplete, social groups. In the same way, any household group, say, a family, is incomplete, since it captures a person not entirely, but only in certain of his manifestations, in his personal life.

A complete social group can only be considered a group that combines the diverse creative efforts of its organic parts - incomplete social groups and each individual person. The entire historical process of social development testifies to the fact that humanity is constantly striving for solidarity into a complete social group, where the creative possibilities of a person receive an all-round development.

At the present stage, the highest form of human association is the nation. The nation has all the signs of a social personality. She has a national self-consciousness, national memory - history, spiritual heredity - tradition and national character, as an expression of her individual identity. In other words, a nation, as a social personality that organically unites people, creates a cultural-historical type that is universal in its influence and weight. Finally, a nation has its own national solidarity, which drives all forms of its social development and strengthens as the latter grow, and its own national egoism. And all this irresistibly leads the nation to ever more free creativity, to cooperation and solidarity of all mankind. And one more of the main signs that characterizes a nation is a common aspirations for the future. We have already said above that society is not an invariable quantity at any moment of its existence. And the closer the existing formation comes to its completion, the brighter and more persistently its tendencies towards solidarity at a higher level of human associations are expressed.

There are already tendencies towards the formation of supernations. A number of concepts have already gone beyond the framework of the nation, such as culture. French culture, Spanish, Italian and others - are now inferior to the new established concept - European culture. These trends are also expressed in the desire of mankind, in some areas, for even greater unification, for example - for world cooperation (congresses of scientists). Finally, thoughts of world government bear witness to the same.

With the development of national creativity, these tendencies are expressed more and more clearly. This position once again convinces of the correctness of the well-known assertion of genuine nationalists: the service of one's nation is also the service of all mankind through one's nation, there is a path for the transition of all mankind to the highest stages of social development. This is all the more clear because the transition to numerically does nothing for large unions unless it is followed by quality the strengthening of solidarity creativity and the growth of all forms of social development. If numerical unification can sometimes be achieved artificially, or by force through, say, conquests, then organic fusion, qualitative change can be achieved only through the growth and development of each person and each association of people, through solidary creative work.

HISTORIOGRAPHY

HISTORY OF RUSSIA

Moscow, 2007

Introduction…………………………………………………………………4 – 16

PART ONE

Section I. Knowledge of national history

in the Middle Ages………………………………………………………….17 – 80

Section II. The formation of historical science

in the XVIII - early XIX centuries……………………………………………….61-165

Separation of history into an independent scientific discipline.

Theoretical foundations of scientific historical knowledge.

Ideas of the Enlightenment in Russian historical science.

Organization of scientific research

Collection, publication and methods of criticism of sources .

Problems of historical research

Rationalistic-pragmatic conception of the history of Russia

Section III And historical science in the second

quarters - 80s of the nineteenth century…………………………………………….166-328

Conditions for the development of historical science.

Organizational forms of historical science.

New approaches to understanding the past.

The subject and tasks of historical science.

The main directions of historical science.

Historical issues in public controversy

New trends in the development of historical science

PART TWO.

Section IV. Historical science in the latest

quarter of the 19th century - the first quarter of the 20th century. ……………………………..329-451

Development of organizational forms of scientific research.

Theory and methodology

Historical concepts of the history of Russia

Historical science in the concepts of Russian history.

Historical problems in public controversy.

Section V. Soviet Historical Science…………………………..452-645

External conditions for the functioning of historical science.

Implementation of new principles for the organization of educational and scientific centers

The introduction of the Marxist-Leninist worldview into historical science

Influence of the internal political situation in the country on the state of historical science

The main internal trends in the development of historical science. Concepts and methods.

Historical science in the first post-revolutionary years:

schools, concepts, discussions

Formation of Soviet historical science. Development of a unified concept of national and world history.

Methodological searches in Soviet historical science

Section VI. Domestic historical science in the late XX - early XXI centuries………………………………………………………………………646-689

INTRODUCTION

The subject of historiography as a special discipline. The current level of scientific historical knowledge is the result of a long process of cognition and understanding of the past. Mastering the centuries-old experience of working on the study of history is one of the most important moments in the professional training of a historian.

The term "historiography" is historically understood in two ways. The concept of "historiographer" and "historian", "historiography" and "history" in the XVIII century were perceived as synonyms. "Historiographers" were called G.F. Miller, M.M. Shcherbatov, N.M. Karamzin, who were engaged in "writing history, that is," historiography ". Subsequently, the meaning of these terms changed, and by historiography they began to understand not history in the literal sense of the word, not the science of the past, but the history of historical science itself, and in the future, accordingly, this was the name of the auxiliary historical discipline that studied the history of historical science.

Historiography is understood today as research on the history of historical science, both in general (the study of the state and development of historical knowledge at its individual temporal and spatial stages), and in relation to the history of the development of individual problems (a set of scientific works devoted to a particular problem), the so-called problem historiography .

The subject of historiography as a special discipline developed gradually, historically. The first definitions of the subject of historiography appeared in the second half of the 19th century. They were not unambiguous: reviews of historical literature and historical sources, scientific biographies of scientists. Gallery of "portraits" of scientists of the 18th-11th centuries. was created by S.M. Soloviev, K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, P.N. Milyukov and others. As the subject of historiography, "scientific systems and theories" were considered. By the end of the XIX century. in the study was not limited to historical writings and historical concepts. The activities of "scientific and educational" institutions and practically the entire sphere of organization of scientific research, as well as the system of special and auxiliary historical disciplines, began to be considered as the subject of historiography. An example of this can be the work of V.S. Ikonnikov.

In Soviet historical science, the largest in Russian and world history addressed the definition of the subject of historiography - O.L. Vanshtein, N.L. Rubinshtein, L.V. Cherepnin, M.V. Nechkina, S.O. Schmidt, I.D. Kovalchenko, A.M. Sakharov, E.N. Gorodetsky, B.G. Mogilnitsky and others. Continuing the traditions of their predecessors, they defined the subject of historiography as the history of historical science, that is, the process of formation and development of scientific knowledge of the past, expressed in general and specific historical concepts. It also includes the study of historical science as a social institution, represented in certain forms of organization, management, dissemination of historical knowledge.

The subject of historiography includes not only scientific knowledge of the past, based on the analysis of sources, the application of special scientific methods of research and theoretical understanding of the past, but also a broader aspect of historical knowledge - the history of historical thought, that is, general ideas about the world, history, presented in philosophy history, social, artistic thought. The subject of historiography included the history of historical knowledge, that is, outside the scientific, everyday ideas about the past, which not only enriches the idea of ​​the past, but is also the most common form of formation of the historical consciousness of society. The study of the historical consciousness of society, its individual groups, the functioning of historical knowledge in social practice today is one of the important aspects of historiographic research.

The structure of the system of historical science. The content of historiography also gradually expanded. The system of historical science includes the process of forming the image of the past, expressed in general and specific concepts in all its components - theory and methodology, source base, research methods; auxiliary and special historical disciplines. A concept is a system of views on historical phenomena and processes from the standpoint of a certain theory of knowledge, source base and methods of study. The theory determines the subject of study, the understanding of the nature of historical development, the factors and forces that determine it. It explains and reveals the basic meaning of the historical process. Actually, the development of science begins with the discovery of “the main meaning that connected all its main phenomena,” noted V.O. Klyuchevsky. It affects the very process of cognition - the methodology that defines the principles of cognition and is the basis for using the method. Differences in theory and methodology give rise to a different understanding by historians of the course of social development, individual events and phenomena. Each of the components of historical knowledge has a certain independence and their own development. The system-forming component is theory and methodology. It is their change that determines the movement of science.

In addition, the system of science also includes social institutions of science (scientific historical institutions, training, forms of dissemination of historical knowledge).

Historical knowledge is formed in a certain social environment, a certain type of culture, which is characterized by the socio-economic, political, ideological state of society, the development of philosophical, social, economic thought. These are factors determining and influencing the state of science in a given period of time. Historical science is closely connected with society, it serves as a link between the past, present and future.

All this determined the structure of historiographic research - the study of the conditions for the development of historical knowledge, the analysis of the historical concept, its influence on the practice of social life.

The process of cognition has a progressive character. Historical knowledge is a complex and diverse process, it is in constant motion, theories and hypotheses are replaced. Change of guiding ideas, concepts is inevitable, because each theory explains a certain range of phenomena. There has always been pluralism in approaches, and even under the dominance of Marxist in Soviet historiography. Today, pluralism in approaches to the study and understanding of historical progress has become the norm.

The historiographical process is a constant accumulation and succession of knowledge, a continuous search for truth. “Each new generation applies its own to the inheritance of the fathers,” wrote N.K. Bestuzhev-Ryumin. The result achieved is only the basis for the subsequent deepening of knowledge based on new approaches to cognition, new facts, new methods. At the same time, traditions in the study of the past are preserved. Track how they were preserved, what was developed and what was lost, what they returned to and are returning to today. On the other hand, it is necessary to indicate how the new was born.

Evaluation of historical knowledge. When assessing the significance of a particular concept, determining the place of a historian in historical science, it is of paramount importance to find out what new, in comparison with previous and modern historiography, this or that concept gave in terms of theory and methodology, research methods, source base and specific conclusions. The second side of the assessment concerns the moral side and practical significance. What is its significance in terms of reflecting the demands of the era, using specific conclusions to understand a specific historical situation.

For Marxist historical science, one of the defining principles for comprehending this or that concept, and therefore the significance of the historian, was the principle of partisanship. Modern historical science has abandoned it, and rightly so. However, it should be borne in mind that history is a social science, and historical knowledge in one way or another expresses certain social needs of society and its individual social groups. The main thing when considering any concept is to understand the historian, to go along with him that path. Which he went to his conclusions.

Principles and methods of historiographical study. In determining the principles of research, historiographers proceed from the objective content of the historical-cognitive process, its diversity, and its dependence on internal and external factors. Methods vary depending on the subject of a particular study and the research task. Each method makes it possible to reveal one or another side of the scientific and cognitive process and, in the aggregate, present it as a holistic one.

One of the main principles is the principle of historicism. It implies consideration of the process of cognition in its development and change, in connection with the nature of the era, its cult-historical type, that is, the type of cognition that prevails in a given era, the presence of a certain set of cognitive means (State theory and methodology). Scientists of the 19th century noted that it is impossible to think that any philosophy, history (in the sense of knowledge about history) can go beyond the limits of its contemporary world, just as this or that scientist cannot jump over his era. The principle of historicism is of decisive importance when considering the categorical and conceptual apparatus of a particular era. It is the basis of many methods of cognition: historical-genetic, comparatively historical, typological, historical-systemic, and others. Modern science, in search of methods for its own historical and historiographical analysis, turns to interdisciplinary methods - cultural, scientific, psychological, philological. And here, special attention is drawn to those principles and methods of research that make it possible to understand the personality of a scientist, his cognizing consciousness, to penetrate into his inner world, into the laboratory of his research. The subjective nature of historical research itself is universally recognized, for the historian not only reproduces the facts, but also explains them. This is connected with the individual that is inherent in a particular scientist: his inner world, character, erudition, intuition, etc. The intrinsic value of the historian's ideas, his right to his own vision of the problem is emphasized.

The formation of historiography as a special discipline Elements of historiography in today's sense of the word have been around for a long time: even ancient Russian chroniclers were largely historiographers. In the 18th century, together with the emergence of historical science, it became an integral part of it, although for a long time it was not considered as an independent discipline. It began to define it as such from the middle of the 19th century, when its subject, tasks, meaning, principles of study, classification and periodization of historical knowledge were clearly defined. The formation and development of historiography as a special branch of historical science goes hand in hand with the development of historiography as part of the educational process.

From the very beginning of the teaching of Russian and world history, historiographic material was introduced into the courses. M.T. Kachenovsky began his course on the history and statistics of the Russian state in 1810 with a critical analysis of historical literature. This tradition was continued by Lashnyukov, S.M. Soloviev, K.N. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, V.O. Klyuchevsky, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky on Russian history, T.N. Granovsky, P.N. Kudryavtsev, V. I. Guerrier, R.Yu. Vipper on world history. In the second half of the XIX century. Russian universities began to teach special courses in historiography.

Not only historians, but also lawyers made their contribution to the development of Russian historiography, especially the development of theoretical and methodological problems (K.D. Kavelin, B.N. Chicherin). In the middle of the XIX century. a school of specialists in philology and historians was formed, dealing with the history and literature of the Slavic and Russian Middle Ages (S.P. Shevyrev, O.M. Bodyansky, N.S. Tikhonravov, F.F. Fortunatov, A.A. Shakhmatov).

Numerous works written by the founders of historiography are classic and largely retain their significance to this day. This is a series of portraits of Russian historians of the 18th-19th centuries. S.M. Solovyov, N.K. Bestuzhev-Ryumin, V.O. Klyuchevsky; monograph by M.O. Koyalovich “The History of Russian Self-Consciousness Based on Historical Monuments and Scientific Works”, by V.S. Ikonnikov “The Experience of Russian Historiography”, P.N.

19th century scientists represented the development of historical knowledge as a single progressive process based on the preservation of traditions and respect for the works of predecessors, constantly enriched by new approaches to the study of history, the formulation and solution of new problems caused both by the movement of scientific knowledge itself and by the needs of society.

They included in the subject of research oral traditions, historical literature, starting with the first annalistic works. The basic principles of historiographic study were determined, the classification of historical literature, the periodization of the development of historical knowledge were given. Scientists have identified differences in views on the historical past, associated with the worldview and socio-political position of the scientist, introduced the concept of "school", "flow". The question was raised of studying the activities of scientific institutions and societies.

However, the Marxist reading of history with its priority of the party principle of understanding the past, including the historiographic heritage, led to a negative assessment of the historical concepts of predecessors. This trend is usually associated primarily with the name of M.N. Pokrovsky, who denied continuity in the development of historical science as a whole. Nevertheless, G.V. Plekhanov and P.N. Milyukov had a great influence on Marxist historiography. Soviet historiographers preserved and developed traditions in defining the subject and tasks of the history of historical science, and agreed with many assessments of the activities of scientists in the 19th century. In the 1930s, the publication of historical works by major Russian historians began.

Of great importance for the development of historiography was the resumption of reading at the universities of the class of historiography on national and world history and the release of the first Soviet textbook - "Russian historiography" by N.L. Rubinshtein, which included coverage of the development of historical knowledge in Russia from ancient times to the beginning of the 20th century .

The problems of historiography in the 1940s and 1950s were successfully dealt with by L.V. Cherepnin, who published in 1957 a course of lectures “Russian historiography until the 19th century”, and then the first work in Russian historiography “Historical views of the classics of Russian literature.

In subsequent years, the study of the problems of historiography was continued by a number of researchers. The work on the study of the history of historical science was headed by the sector of historiography at the Institute of History of the USSR under the leadership of M.V. Nechkina. He prepared and published three volumes of Essays on the History of Historical Science in the USSR on pre-Soviet historiography (1955-1963) and two volumes on the history of historical science of the Soviet period (1966, 1984). New general courses on historiography also appeared: "Historiography of the history of the USSR from ancient times to the Great October Socialist Revolution." Ed. V.E. Illeritsky and I.A. Kudryavtsev (1961); course of lectures by A.M. Sakharov “Historiography of the history of the USSR. Pre-Soviet period "(1978); A.L. Shapiro "Historiography from ancient times to 1917" (1993) In addition, monographic studies were published in the 60-80s

A significantly smaller group of textbooks and studies is represented by the historiography of the 20th century. In 1966, a textbook by V.N. Kotov “Historiography of the history of the USSR (1917-1934)” was published; “Historiography of the history of the USSR in the period of completion of socialist construction in the USSR (mid-1930s - late 1950s), as well as the two volumes of Essays on the History of Historical Science in the USSR mentioned above. Practically the only textbook on Soviet historiography was the textbook edited by I.I. Mints “Historiography of the history of the USSR. The era of socialism "(1982)

To characterize the features of Russian historical science, including when studying the traditions of the study of Russian historiography, research and teaching aids that characterize the domestic experience in studying the historiography of related historical disciplines are of great importance: "History of Soviet Medieval Studies" by O.L.Vanshtein (1966) , "Historiography of the modern and recent history of the countries of Europe and America" ​​edited by I.S. Galkin (1968), "Historiography of the Middle Ages" by E.A. Kosminsky (1963), "Soviet Byzantine studies for 50 years" Z. V. Udaltsova (1969) and, of course, modern textbooks of historiography on certain periods of world history.

Significance of historiography. Concentrating knowledge about the past, historiography performs a cognitive function in the system of historical science. It makes it possible to take advantage of accumulated experience, "to save research forces", to choose the best ways to solve the tasks ahead. Understanding the past and present of historical science, the patterns of its development provides information for determining the prospects for its development, improving the forms of organization of scientific research, developing the source base, training specialists in history, etc.

Historiography plays an important role in the structure of each specific study in determining its objectives, source base, methodology and research methods. Knowledge of the previous experience of history is an important aspect in interpreting facts, summing them up under certain concepts and categories.

Historiography is a link between historical science and social practice. It reveals the "social order" of society for scientific knowledge and the role of this knowledge in solving the problems of our time.

Historiographic practice is one of the ways to establish the truth of historical knowledge.. It reveals. What, in the process of studying the past, constituted an organic, integral part of scientific ideas about the essence of the phenomena being studied, what conclusions are limited, relative, what was confirmed by subsequent studies, what was rejected, etc. It establishes the priority of this or that scientist in putting forward new ideas in comprehending the historical process.

Knowledge of the history of one's own science increases the professionalism of a historian, enriches his erudition, and raises his general cultural level. It teaches one to take care of everything that has been done on the path of knowing the past, cultivates respect for previous generations of historians and their contemporaries. An attempt "to present the results obtained by Russian historical science ..., to point out the ways in which these results have been obtained and are being obtained ... is not without benefit for those embarking on an independent study of history"1

In post-perestroika times, the study of the history of historical science has acquired particular importance. This is due to a number of factors: the need to develop theoretical and methodological issues of historical science, both in connection with a new attitude towards Marxism, and the formulation of new problems and the revision of old ones, the definition of the content of the conceptual and categorical apparatus; the opportunity to study more deeply the experience of philosophical and historical thought in Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries. and foreign historiography of the 20th century; wide publication of the historical heritage of previous eras; development of historical journalism. The forms of organization of historical research have also changed, and the experience of training historians needs careful analysis.

This also determines the importance of historiography as an academic discipline.

Recently, attempts have been made to take a fresh look at the history of historical science, which is also reflected in the educational literature. Among the textbooks: "Historiography of the history of Russia until 1917" edited by M.Yu. Lachaeva (2003). Soviet historiography in its individual fragments is presented in the collection of articles "Soviet historiography" edited by Yu.N. Afanasyev (1996). study guide N.G. Samarina "Patriotic historical science in the Soviet era" (2002). The first attempt to comprehend the historiography of the 80-90s of the twentieth century. was the publication of the work of E.B. Zabolotny and V.D. Kamynin Historical science of Russia on the eve of the third millennium (1999).

The increased interest in the history of historical knowledge in all its manifestations is a characteristic feature of modernity. The ongoing changes in historical science draw the attention of scientists to a deeper study of the nature and goals of the historical-cognitive process, to existing and existing ideas about the past. But today, the approach familiar to many historiographers has not yet been completely overcome, according to which the principles of the approach to the study of the history of the historical science of Soviet society are fundamentally different from the approaches to the study of pre-Soviet historiography. This textbook is the first attempt to create a single textbook for the course of historiography, in which all the stages of comprehension of national history would be presented in the system.

The textbook presents the historical science of Russia on Russian history from ancient times to the beginning of the 21st century. The textbook is divided into two parts. The first part is a presentation of the state and development of science from ancient times to the last quarter of the 19th century. In accordance with the accepted periodization of the history of historical science, it consists of three sections: the first section is domestic historical science in the Middle Ages; the second - historical science in the 18th - the first quarter of the 19th century; the third - historical science in the second - third quarter of the 19th century. Part two includes the development of historical science in the last third of the 19th - early 21st centuries. - the first quarter of the twentieth century; section five - Soviet historiography. 1917 - 1985; section six - Domestic historical science in the late XX - early XXI centuries.

The course is organized in chronological order. . The state of science at one stage or another of its development is presented with all the components that form its content

LITERATURE

Dmitrienko V.A.. Introduction to historiography and source studies of historical science. Tomsk. 1988.

Kireeva R.A. The study of Russian historiography in pre-revolutionary Russia since the middle of the 19th century. until 1917. M., 1983.

Kovalchenko I.D. Methods of historical research. Part 1. M., 1987.

Nechkina M.V.. History of History (Some Methodological Issues in the History of Historical Science). // History and historians. Historiography of the history of the USSR. M., 1965.

Sakharov A.M. Methodology of history and historiography. Articles and speeches. M., 1981.

Selunskaya N.B. Problems of methodology of history. M. - 2003

Everything created in the region
method is only temporary
character as methods change
as science advances
E. Durkheim

Modern trends in the development of the methodology of history determine not only the features of the state of historical science, but also the prospects for its development in the 21st century. The chronological framework in the analysis of the historiographical process is very arbitrary. However, it is customary to consider the period of the 1960s-70s as the “lower limit” of the modern stage of the development of methodology and historiography. During this period, which is also called “the period between modernism and postmodernism” in the historical community, 5 those features of the methodology of history were formed that determine the nature of its development at the turn of the 20th and 21st centuries, and the dynamics of which constitute the content of the evolution of the theoretical and methodological foundations of modern historical science and to some extent determines its development in the foreseeable future. In the most generalized form, these tendencies can be formulated on the basis of the difference in the interpretation of cardinal issues related to the theoretical and methodological foundations of historical science. They manifest themselves in the search for new disciplinary theories, changes in the understanding and manifestation of interdisciplinarity in historical research, the emergence of new interdisciplinary fields, the evolution of "scientific history", the impact of the "postmodern challenge" on the historiographical tradition, the revival of narrative and "new historicism".
The current stage in the development of historiography is characterized by "pluralism" in the field of methodology of history, short-term waves of "popular" methodologies and their change - the devaluation of some and the "challenge" of other methodological and theoretical paradigms. The general situation at the end of the 20th century is characterized as a period of crisis in historical science, primarily associated with the dissatisfaction of the historical community with the theoretical and methodological foundations of its subject area of ​​scientific knowledge. The most characteristic feature of the development of modern historiography in the theoretical and methodological aspect, as noted by historiographers, is struggle between two tendencies- scientistic, scientific, sociologizing history and culturological, "historicizing" history. Historians also associate these two trends with respectively optimistic and pessimistic views on scientific and technological progress 6 .

It seems appropriate to give a brief description of these areas in terms of disclosing their theoretical and methodological foundations.
In characterizing "scientific history" it is important to emphasize that it is a movement for an analytic interdisciplinary history enriched by the theoretical models and research methods of the social sciences. Therefore, it is also called "sociologizing" history, and acquired its name "scientific" for its predilection for scientific approaches to historical research, including the use of methods of exact sciences, in particular, the methodology of quantification, i.e. application of quantitative methods in historical research. The latter direction has a rich tradition of being used in specific historical research and has been thoroughly developed in domestic and foreign literature of a theoretical and methodological nature.
"Scientific history" also claimed the role of "new history", in contrast to the so-called "traditional historiography". For all the theoretical and methodological heterogeneity and national specifics of development, representatives of different trends and historiographic schools, who consider themselves to be “new history”, opposed the following provisions, characteristic of the traditional paradigm of historical science 8 . This is, first of all, adherence to the traditional historiography of political history. "History is the politics of the past; politics is the history of the present" (Sir John Seeley). The main emphasis was on national history, the history of international relations, church history and military history. New historiography, on the contrary, is interested in any manifestation of human activity. “Everything has a history” - hence the slogan of “total history” proclaimed by the Annales school. At the same time, the philosophical justification of the "new" historiography is the idea of ​​a socially or culturally constructed reality.
Traditional historiography conceives of history as a presentation (narrative) of events, while the "new" one is more concerned with the analysis of structures, believing, according to Fernand Braudel's definition, that "the history of events is the foam on the waves of the sea of ​​history."
Traditional historiography sees history as if "from above", focusing exclusively on the "deeds of great men." Such a limited vision of history is reminiscent of the arrogance of the reigning person, manifested in the words of Nicholas I, spoken by A.S. Pushkin: "People like Pugachev have no history." New History, on the contrary, studies history from below, as it were, interested in ordinary people and their experience of historical change.
Hence the interest in folk culture, collective mentalities, etc.
Traditional historiography considers a narrative source of official origin stored in the archive to be a priority in terms of the reliability of historical information. The new historiography, on the contrary, points to its limitations and refers to additional sources: oral, visual, statistical, etc.
The new historiography, opposing subjectivism, has attached great importance since the 1950s-60s. deterministic models of historical explanation that prioritize economic (Marxist), geographic (Braudel), or demographic (Malthusian) factors.
From the point of view of the traditional paradigm, history should be objective, and the task of the historian is to present the facts in an unbiased way, of “how things really were” (Ranke). The new history sees this task as impossible, and is based on cultural relativism.

Unlike the traditional one, the "new" history expands the interpretation of the concept of a historian's professionalism, introducing into this concept the need to master the methodological skills of an interdisciplinary approach.
It should be noted that the Marxist theory and methodology of the social sciences played a decisive role in shaping the direction of "scientific history". The consequence of this was the attention of historians of this direction to the study of societies, and not to individuals, to the identification of general patterns, generalization as the basis for explaining the changes that took place in society in the past. It was the desire to move away from narrative history, answering the questions of “what” and “how” happened in history in chronological order, the desire to get closer to the answer to the question “why” when studying the historical past.
Turning to the history of the formation of this direction, we note that it was formulated as the direction of "scientific history" in the nineteenth century by Leopold von Ranke. So, he emphasized as the main characteristic of this kind of historical research special attention to the historical source, the importance of the empirical, documentary basis for historical research, the introduction of new historical sources into scientific circulation. Subsequently, as a rule, in historiography three different currents of "scientific history" are distinguished, which developed on the basis of various theoretical and methodological foundations and made a special contribution to the development of various areas of historical science. These are the Marxist trend (primarily associated with the methodology of socio-economic history), the French "Annals school" (developing, first of all, ecological and demographic models) and the American "cliometry methodology" (claiming to create a new political, new economic and new social stories). Special attention should be paid to the theoretical and methodological heterogeneity and conditionality of such a classification, which puts both national historiographic schools and international methodological trends on a par. Thus, for example, one cannot identify the development of quantification methodology only with American historiography, just as one cannot identify Marxist methodology exclusively with Marxist historiography.
It seems important that the student audience be familiar with each of the listed trends in "scientific history" 9 .

second, cultural trend can be designated, according to the definition of a number of researchers, as "historic turn" a turn not only of history itself to its own subject - man, but also of the social sciences to history. At the same time, part of the "historical turn" is the so-called "cultural turn" in the study of humanity and society. In many educational institutions, especially in the English-speaking world, "cultural studies" have become widespread. Scholars who a decade ago called themselves literary critics, art historians, or science historians now prefer to refer to themselves as “cultural historians,” specializing in “visual culture,” “culture of science,” and so on. Political scientists and political historians study "political culture", economists and economic historians have turned their attention from production to consumption and to culturally shaped desires and needs. At the same time, the discipline of history is divided into more and more sub-disciplines, and most scholars prefer to contribute to the history of individual "sectors" rather than writing about entire cultures 10 .
A new style of cultural history was born by the last generation of historians, thanks in large part to ex-Marxists, or at least scholars who found certain aspects of Marxism attractive. This style has been defined as "new cultural history", although it seems more reasonable to call it "anthropological history" - since many of its adherents were influenced by anthropologists. Much has also been borrowed from literary criticism - for example, in the United States, where the "new historians" adapted its method of "close reading" for the study of documentary texts. Semiotics - the study of all varieties of signs, from poems and drawings to clothing and food - was a joint project of philologists (Roman Jacobson, Roland Barthes) and anthropologists (Claude Levistros). Their attention to deep, unchanging structures at first nullified interest in them on the part of historians, but within the last generation, the contribution of semiotics to the renewal of cultural history has become more and more obvious.
A significant group of scholars now regard the past as a distant land, and like anthropologists see their task in interpreting the language of its culture, literally and figuratively. In other words, cultural history is a cultural translation from the language of the past into the language of the present, an adaptation of the concepts of contemporaries for historians and their readers.
The difference between the current anthropological model of cultural history and its predecessors, the classical and Marxist models, can be summarized in four points:
1. First, it lacks the traditional contrast between societies with culture and societies without culture. For example, the decline of the Roman Empire is now viewed not as a defeat of “culture” under the onslaught of “barbarians”, but as a clash of cultures that had their own values, traditions, practices, representations, etc. Paradoxical as this expression may sound, but there was a “civilization of barbarians” . Like anthropologists, the new cultural historians speak of "cultures" in the plural. While not admitting that all cultures are equal in all respects, they at the same time refrain from value judgments about the advantages of one over another - the very judgments that are an obstacle to understanding.
2. Secondly, culture was redefined as the totality of "inherited artifacts, goods, technical processes, ideas, habits and values" (according to Malinowski), or as "the symbolic dimension of social action" (according to Geertz). In other words, the meaning of this concept has been expanded to include a much wider range of activities. Central to this approach is everyday life, or "everyday culture," in particular the rules that govern everyday life - what Bourdieu calls the "theory of practice" and Lotman the "poetics of everyday behavior." Understood in such a broad sense, culture is called upon to explain economic and political changes that were previously considered more narrowly.

3. The idea of ​​"tradition", central to the old cultural history, has been replaced by a number of alternative concepts. The concept of cultural "reproduction" proposed by Louis Altussier and Pierre Bourdieu suggests that traditions do not continue by inertia, but are passed on with great difficulty from generation to generation. The so-called "theorists of perception", including Michel de Certeau, have replaced the traditional position of passive perception with the new idea of ​​creative adaptation. From their point of view, the essential characteristic of cultural transmission is the change in what is transmitted: the emphasis has shifted With communicating to the receiver on the basis that what is perceived is always different from what was originally transmitted, since the recipients, consciously or not, interpret and adapt the proposed ideas, customs, images, etc.
4. The fourth and last point is a change in ideas about the relationship between culture and society, implicitly embedded in the Marxist critique of classical cultural history. Cultural historians object to the idea of ​​a "superstructure". Many of them believe that culture is able to withstand social influences, or even shapes social reality. Hence the growing interest in the history of "representations" and, in particular, in the history of the "construction", "invention" or "composition" of what were considered social "facts" - class, nation or gender.
"Historic turn"
In the materials of a number of international historical conferences and congresses "historic turn" is regarded as a hallmark of the modern intellectual era as a new historicism, which manifests itself in the renewed interest in history in philosophy, in the emergence of historically oriented approaches in political science, economic studies, "ethnohistory", historical anthropology, historical sociology, and even historicist methodological discussion in historical science itself !".
As noted in the specialized literature, in recent decades, the humanities have enthusiastically turned to history. In anthropology, literature, philosophy, economics, sociology, political science, the testing of hypotheses with “data from the past”, the study of processes over time, and approaches based on various historical methods “work” especially well. The "historical turn" affects social theories and sociology. Thus, the unprecedented success and importance of historical sociology for the modern understanding of historical variations of such categories as class, gender, revolution, state, religion, cultural identification is recognized. Representatives of the social sciences recognize the close relationship between history and the constructions of sociological knowledge, emphasizing that the agent, structure, and standards of knowledge themselves are closely related to history.
Representatives of the social sciences express the idea that it is necessary to direct the focus of history to the foundations of the social sciences, to science in general, as fundamental knowledge. emphasized the historicity of scientific knowledge in general, the significance of historical methodology in the epistemological and ontological aspects.
The "historical turn" in the philosophy of science and in the social sciences is associated with the publication in 1962 of Kuhn's book, in which he noted that if history was considered only as an anecdote or chronology, then such an image of history could cause a decisive transformation in the image of science, in general 12 . This would be a false image, for it would present science as something abstract and timeless as the basis for knowledge. Knowledge exists in time and space and is historical.

The post-Kunovian historical turn is manifested in the fact that, firstly, it is recognized that the modern foundations of scientific knowledge are historical, and not cumulative truths, and secondly, the conceptual foundations of the ontology of science are also churo-historical. Thirdly, the process of knowledge formation is a twofold process. However, even when posing the question - in the context of studying, revealing certain aspects of being, as well as when checking (answering the question posed) the results of the study, the connection with history, with the historical component in the methodology, is inevitable.
The manifestation of the "historical turn" in sociology is manifested in the formation of historical and comparative methodology 13 . It is known that for two centuries sociologists have been debating whether society is an integral system or is a collection of aggregated individuals with their own individual preferences. From this follows another question that requires historical methodology for its solution: how is the social role of a person manifested as the main character, the subject of history - as an individual that is part of society, or only at the level of society, that is, collectively.
All these changes "historical" in three senses: firstly, they represent an epochal turn against the science of a society that was formed as an oppositional historiographic direction of traditional history immediately in the post-war period, Secondly, they include a continuing and definite turn to history as a process, as to the past, as a context, but not necessarily as a discipline, that is, they are a component of intellectual research in a wide range of different areas of scientific (primarily humanitarian) knowledge. AT- third, they again contribute to the formulation of cardinal questions of the methodology of history, such as, for example, the question of the subject of history and its structure, the question of "disciplinary discourse", etc.
The methodology of comparative historical analysis, taking into account its importance, will be specially considered in a special section of the manual.
Thus, on the one hand, a turn to history is observed in such disciplines as sociology, political science, law, and literature. This is manifested in the emergence of critical social theories, literary criticism, new interdisciplinary projects (gender, cultural studies, etc.). On the other hand, the role of theory and methodology in history is being rethought, the strategy of forming the theoretical and methodological foundations of history is changing - from borrowing theory from the social sciences to "own" theories. At the same time, the notion "historical consciousness" which is understood analytical reconstruction of contextualized actions and historical figures and presentation of them in a theoretically complex narrative that includes many causes and results. In this historians see the basis of the historical turn. History changes (expands) functions and is defined not only as a subject, a scientific discipline, but as epistemology, "historical epistemology".
All the humanities are experiencing a "historical turn", but since each field of knowledge has its own "culture of knowledge", the place of history will accordingly be different. However, it is indisputable that the manifestations of the "historical turn", in particular, is a new stage in the development of interdisciplinary research and interdisciplinarymethodology.
Thus, according to the opinion of the world scientific community, in the 80-90s of the XX century there is a growth and development of trends of interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, metadisciplinarity, the manifestation of which, in particular, is the counter movement of sociology and history towards one goal - the formation of historical social science. However, one should keep in mind the special context of understanding interdisciplinarity in contemporary discussions. It is, first of all, about the search for theories, an adequate basis for explaining the "past reality", which in a special way was actualized due to the fact that faith in the only scientific "transhistorical" road to generalized universal knowledge is undermined by the devaluation of the once authoritative theories on the modern world. mid-twentieth century. The Marxist theory, which destroyed the walls of idealism and the belief in the "ideology of scientific neutrality", in turn, was also rejected by a number of representatives of the "post" directions - ostpositivism, postmodernism, poststructuralism, postmarxism. And now history is seen by many as a kind of oasis of the epistemological world. One of the issues to be revised in the field of epistemology is the version of "reality", which includes ideas about society, history and epistemology. Representatives of the social sciences claim that they are losing their grasp of reality, as the scientific community continues to exist in the intellectual and institutional space created mainly after the Second World War - in the middle of the 20th century. Interdisciplinary relationships were also formed at this time, and therefore there is knowledge shared by the ideas of the scientific community of that time about various disciplines (for example, about anthropology, psychology, demography, history, etc.). However, today it is very indicative for understanding modern trends interdisciplinarity are the relations between history and sociology. These relations involve resolving the issue of the role of theory and fact, analysis and interpretation, the status and subject matter of each of these disciplines. In the broad context of interdisciplinarity, the question arises as to whether history should become the object of theory and whether sociology should become the object of history. According to experts, it was after World War II that "ahistorical" sociology and "atheoretical" history (in particular, in American historiography) were formed. There was a process of formation of history as a discipline, borrowing theory from sociology and other disciplines, not generating its own theory or even discussions on questions of theory. On the other hand, sociology developed a theory applicable "for all times and countries", without realizing the historical context, the features of "historical duration", etc. History was seen as a destabilizing factor for theory, and sociology as a destabilizing factor for history.
The post-Kunovian historical turn is manifested in the fact that, firstly, it is recognized that the modern foundations of scientific knowledge are historical, and not cumulative truths, and secondly, the conceptual foundations of the ontology of science are also churo-historical. Thirdly, the process of knowledge formation is a twofold process. However, when posing the question - in the context of studying, revealing certain aspects of being, as well as when checking (answering the question) the results of the study, the connection with history, with the historical component in the methodology is inevitable. The manifestation of the "historical turn" in sociology is manifested in the formation of historical and comparative methodology. It is known that for two centuries sociologists have been debating whether society is an integral system or is a collection of aggregated individuals with their own individual preferences. From this follows another question that requires historical methodology for its solution: how does the social role of a person manifest itself as the main character, the subject of history - as an individual that is part of society, or only at the level of society, that is, collectively. All these changes in three senses : they represent an epochal turn in a society that was formed as an oppositional historiographic direction of traditional history immediately in the post-war period, they include an ongoing and definite turn to history as a process, as a past, as a context, but not necessarily as a discipline, that is are a component of intellectual research in a wide range of different areas of scientific (primarily humanitarian) knowledge. they again contribute to the formulation of cardinal questions of the methodology of history, such as, for example, the question of the subject of history and its structure, the question of "disciplinary discourse", etc.
Thus, on the one hand, a turn to history is observed in such disciplines as sociology, political science, law, and literature. This is manifested in the emergence of critical social theories, literary criticism, new interdisciplinary projects (gender, cultural studies, etc.). On the other hand, the role of theory and methodology in history is being rethought, the strategy of forming the theoretical and methodological foundations of history is changing - from borrowing theory from the social sciences to "own" theories. At the same time, the concept of analytical reconstruction of contextualized actions and historical persons and their presentation in a theoretically complex narrative that includes many causes and results comes to the fore. In this historians see the basis of the historical turn. History changes (expands) functions and is defined not only as a subject, a scientific discipline, but as All the humanities are experiencing a "historical turn", but since each field of knowledge has its own "culture of knowledge", the place of history will accordingly be different. However, it is indisputable that the manifestations of the "historical turn", in particular, is a new stage in the development of interdisciplinary research, and so, according to the world scientific community, in the 80-90s of the XX century, there is a growth and development of trends in interdisciplinarity, multidisciplinarity, metadisciplinarity, the manifestation of which , in particular, is the counter movement of sociology and history in the direction of one goal - the formation of historical social science. However, one should keep in mind the special context of understanding in contemporary discussions. First of all, we are talking about the search for theories, an adequate basis for explaining the “past reality”, which has become especially relevant due to the fact that faith in the only scientific “transhistorical” road to generalized universal knowledge has been undermined by the devaluation of the once authoritative theories of the middle XX century. The Marxist theory, which destroyed the walls of idealism and the belief in the "ideology of scientific neutrality", in turn, was also rejected by a number of representatives of the "post" directions - ostpositivism, postmodernism, poststructuralism, postmarxism. And now history is seen by many as a kind of oasis of the epistemological world. One of the issues to be revised in the field of epistemology is the version of "reality", which includes ideas about society, history and epistemology. Representatives of the social sciences claim that they are losing their grasp of reality, as the scientific community continues to exist in the intellectual and institutional space created mainly after the Second World War - in the middle of the 20th century. relations were also formed at this time, and therefore there is knowledge shared by the ideas of the scientific community of that time about various disciplines (for example, about anthropology, psychology, demography, history, etc.). However, today relations are very indicative for understanding modern trends between history and sociology. These relations involve resolving the issue of the role of theory and fact, analysis and interpretation, the status and subject matter of each of these disciplines. In the broad context of interdisciplinarity, the question arises as to whether history should become the object of theory and whether sociology should become the object of history. According to experts, it was after World War II that "ahistorical" sociology and "atheoretical" history (in particular, in American historiography) were formed. There was a process of formation of history as a discipline, borrowing theory from sociology and other disciplines, not generating its own theory or even discussions on questions of theory. On the other hand, sociology developed a theory applicable "for all times and countries", without realizing the historical context, the features of "historical duration", etc. History was seen as a destabilizing factor for theory, and sociology as a destabilizing factor for history.

However, today it seems obvious that in history itself there are sources for theoretical generalizations, for the emergence of theory (which creates the basis for the formation of the "sociology of history"), and the historical context in sociology leads in turn to the formation of "historical sociology".
If in the post-war period historical science was characterized by a deep interest in the “new scientific approach”, which was not only methodological, because it also involved the search for a theory in history as a discipline (disciplinary theory), then at the present stage this search for a disciplinary theory manifested itself in the revival of the narrativeas an ontological and epistemological concept, principle for the practice of historical research. This new trend was analyzed by the English historian Lawrence Stone in the article "Revival of the Narrative", published in 1970 and widely discussed until now (L. Stone, "The Rerival of the Narrative", Past and present, 85 (1979). 3-24.).
Interest in the narrative at the present stage is manifested in two aspects. First, historians are interested in the creation of a narrative as such. Secondly (and this became apparent after the publication of Stone's article), historians began to consider many of the sources as stories told by specific people, and not as an objective reflection of the past; The 1990s proved that Stone was right when he claimed "a shift from an analytical to a descriptive model of historical writing."
Nevertheless, a narrative can be as simple as a line from a chronicle, or quite complex, capable of withstanding the burden of interpretation. The problem facing historiography today is to create a narrative that describes not only the sequence of events and the conscious intentions of the actors in them, but also the structures - institutions, ways of thinking, etc. - that slow down or, conversely, spur on the course these events. To date, we can talk about the following approaches to its solution:
"Micronarrative" is a kind of microhistory that tells about ordinary people in their local environment (works by K. Ginzburg, N.Z. Davis). In this case, the narrative allows you to highlight structures that were previously invisible (the structures of a peasant family, cultural conflict, etc.)
2. Attempts to link the particular with the general, micro-narrative and macro-narrative within the framework of one work is the most productive direction in recent historiography. In the Monograph of Orlando Figes "A People's Tragedy" (People's Tragedy, 1996), the author presents a narrative of the events of the Russian revolution, in which private histories of historical figures, both famous (Maxim Gorky) and completely ordinary (a certain peasant Sergei Semenov).
3. A presentation of history in reverse order, from the present to the past, or rather, a presentation of the past reflected in the present. An example of such an approach is the history of Poland as presented by Norman Davies (Norman Davies. Near of Eugore, 1984).
An important consequence of the ongoing changes within historical science, associated with the growth of disciplinary self-awareness, is "new historicism". New historicism is directly related to the use of cultural theory by the historical community, and in the methodological aspect it is associated with the recognition of the special role, “power” of literary forms that can have a decisive influence on the process of birth and formation of ideas, subject and practice of historical writings. New historicism is associated with the denial of the "social", which is no longer evaluated as some kind of "framework" of history, but only as a moment in history and, consequently, with the replacement of the concept of "social" with new concepts. It should be noted that the concept of historicism has been widely discussed in historiography by representatives of various schools and trends and is one of the most ambitious in the methodology of history. It is based on the emphasis on constant movement and change in the course of events, the role of which is interpreted differently depending on the theoretical views of representatives of certain historiographic schools. Thus, "absolute historicism", developed by German historiography, is equivalent to relativism and leads to the conclusion about the uniqueness of the historical fact. At the same time, he opposes the thesis of the immutability of human nature.
The version of the "new" scientific approach to history was associated, in particular, with the theories of the middle level, which were used as an "intermediary" in the relationship between the historian and the facts and had a double function: a research hypothesis and a guarantor of objectivity. At the level of epistemology, the "new approach" manifested itself in the separation of the "actual past", the "reproduced past" and the "written past". The general trend was to move along the path search disciplinary theory for history(from borrowing"social" theories to historical self-consciousness, "new historicism"). It must be said that there is a long tradition in historiography of the search for a "disciplinary theory". David Carr sees the following stages and aspects of the formation of disciplinary theory. Thus, already from the mid-1940s, there was a division of history into layers, on which written history was based, which, in turn, was considered as a systematic or fragmentary narrative related to a part of history-reality. This division of history already emphasized the special role of narrative. There were other approaches, such as functionalism (presentism), which considered the basic principles that "lead" historical research, determine the choice of problem, the selection of sources and the evaluation of results as a function of the present, because the historian writes in the context of the problem that he chooses in the present, for reasons and with such an approach to the solution that are accepted by science at the present stage. That is, the very appeal to history would always be a function of the present. In the post-war period, political functionalism was criticized as well as presentist theories. At this time, historians came to the conclusion about the role of theory (so far borrowed) and the preference for middle-level theory over "grand theories". Since the mid-1950s, historians have been believing that the facts speak for themselves, as well as that history is reproducible in its entirety. "The position that history has no theoretical foundations (other than temporal sequence) for generalization also caused doubts. The existence of "theoretically thinking historians" using theories of the social sciences was allowed - various concepts of historical changes - Marxism, evolutionary theory, theological theories, the concepts of Toynbee and Spengler (works that were evaluated as speculative philosophies of history.) However, in the 1960s and 70s there was a devaluation of generalizing theories, "philosophies of history", and historians preferred to return to theories of the middle level.The relationship between history and sociology was not methodological, but theoretical.
The indicators of the last decades, along with the growth disciplinary consciousness historians have and reducing barriers between history and other disciplines. Historians continue to borrow theories anthropology, literary criticism, ethnology, etc. Interdisciplinarity at the historiographical level manifested itself in the appearance in the 1960s and 70s of various “new histories” (urban, labor, family, women’s, etc.) that shared this methodological orientation.
So, the historicity of this epochal turn lies in its direction against the science of society, which was formed as an opposition to "traditional" history in the post-war period. This is a turn to history as a “past”, understood, however, primarily as culture, to history as a context (not as a discipline), which has become a component of intellectual research in a wide range of areas. The result of the "historical turn" is the revival of narrative history, focusing on events, culture and individuals.

The current state of development of the methodology of history is characterized by a critical, and sometimes nihilistic, attitude towards the previous tradition. Practically all the main historiographic directions are subjected to critical analysis, the representations of which are looking for new paradigms within history as a social science. Historiographers note the crisis of the concept of "scientific history".
The manifestation of a critically nihilistic attitude towards the main directions of the methodology of the history of the 20th century - positivism, Marxism, structuralism - the historical community calls "postmodern challenge" 14 . It must be noted that "postmodernism" is a concept related to a very wide range of issues, including those outside of history. As noted in the special edition "Historiography between Modernism and Postmodernism: Studies in the Methodology of Historical Research", in an article on the origins of postmodernist historiography, postmodernism is a multi-valued concept 15 . As the representatives of postmodernism themselves noted in the materials of a conference specially devoted to the issues of postmodernism and held in 1984 in Utrecht (Netherlands), they managed to determine only the general contours of the concept of "postmodernism" or "poststructuralism". Nevertheless, the ideologists of postmodernism see its place in historical theory as "the radicalization of nineteenth-century historicism." Postmodernism is, in their opinion, both a "theory of history" and a "theory about history" 1b.
As you know, postmodernism appeared as a negation of modernist architecture, represented by such trends as the Bauhaus and the Le Carbusier school. This concept is also used to refer to new directions.
In studies devoted to postmodernism, this phenomenon is associated with representativeism - a trend whose representatives define history as "representation in textual form", which should be subject to aesthetic analysis in the first place 18 . The basis for such judgments are the statements of the ideologists of postmodernism that “in recent decades (XX century - KS.) a new order of relations between historical reality and its representation in historical research has emerged,” which was largely facilitated by the postmodernists themselves * 9 .
Postmodernists see their goal in "knocking the ground out from under the feet of science and modernism." The main provisions of the ideologists of postmodernism - the Dutch scientist F. Ankersmit and the American researcher X. White - are set out in their monographs and on the pages of scientific journals 20 .
Obviously, the publication of White's Metahistory can be seen as a shift in the theory and philosophy of history, referred to as a "linguistic turn." During this linguistic turn, storytelling and representation have taken a prominent place in discussions concerning such important issues as, for example, explanation in history. The poetics of history came to the fore, whereby the question "how history differs from literature" replaced the question "how history differs from science" as the main question of metahistorical reflection.
The starting point for postmodernist ideas about the subject of "writing history" was the current "overproduction" of historical research. The situation that Nietzsche feared more than a hundred years ago, when historiography itself prevents us from forming an idea of ​​the past, according to the ideologists of postmodernism, has become a reality. They also deny the possibility of creating a comprehensive (total) history due to the lack of an adequate theory of history, the underdevelopment of "theoretical history", which is not able to overcome the chaos caused by the differentiation of the subject area of ​​history ("fragmentation of the past", as defined by Ankersmit), the specialization of historical research and "overproduction" of historical literature. The current state of historiography, in the opinion of postmodernists, pushes reality, the historical past, into the background. The object of historical science - historical reality - is the information itself, and not the reality hidden behind it.
At present, postmodernists argue, historiography has "outgrown its traditional theoretical coat" and therefore needs new clothes. Representatives of postmodernism see the determination of the place of history in modern civilization as an important task, which means, in their version, the identification of parallels, i.e. similarities between history and literature, literary criticism.
For postmodernists, both the philosophy of science and science itself is a given, the starting point of their reflections. Postmodernists do not focus on scientific research itself, nor on how society masters its results, in the center of their interests is only the functioning of science and scientific information as such.
For postmodernism, science and information are independent objects of study, subject to their own laws. The main law of postmodern information theory is the law of information multiplication, reflected, in particular, in the following thesis: "The stronger and more convincing the interpretation, the more new works (new information -KS.) it generates". The subject of analysis of postmodernists is the language used in science, and the phenomena of the historical past, reality acquire a linguistic nature in their studies. The language used in science is an object, and objects in reality acquire a linguistic nature.
The past reality should be considered, according to postmodernists, as a text written in a foreign language that has the same lexical, grammatical, syntactic and semantic parameters as any other text. Thus, according to Ankersmit, "the historian's interest was transferred from historical reality to the printed page" 22 . Thus, postmodernists oppose historiography, as well as art and literature, to science, absolutizing the aesthetic function of history and identifying historical research with a literary work. Thus, Hayden White is assessed as an adherent of the "rhetorical analysis" of historical writings. For White, there is no doubt that history is, first of all, an exercise in rhetoric, including the selection of facts, but first of all embodied in a story and involving a special technology 23 .
For a detailed analysis of H. White's theory of historical research, see: R. Torstendahl. Decree op.
If a modernist historian ("scientific historian") comes to conclusions on the basis of historical sources and evidence of historical reality hidden behind them, then from the point of view of a postmodernist, evidence does not point to the past itself, but to other interpretations of the past, since in fact we use evidence precisely for it. This approach can be characterized as the modernization of the historical source. The specificity of the proposed method of analyzing sources is that it is not so much aimed at revealing the historical reality hidden in them, as it emphasizes that these evidence of the past acquire meaning and significance only in a collision with the mentality of a later time, in which the historian lives and writes.
Postmodernism developed against the backdrop of a "paradigmatic shift" in modern historiography: the latter consists mainly in the transfer by historians of their scientific interests from the realm of macrohistorical structures to the realm of microhistorical situations and everyday relationships.
Postmodernists have criticized all areas of "scientific history", which they call "modernist scientific historiography" for historicism and attention to what really happened in the past, and insufficient susceptibility to a priori schemes. In this context, postmodernists have also emphasized the close ties that link so-called "scientific social history" to Marxism.
With the advent of postmodern (nominalist) historiography, especially in the history of mentalities, in their opinion, for the first time there was a break with the age-old essentialist (realist) tradition. According to the postmodern concept of history, the goal of research is no longer integration, synthesis and totality, but historical details, which become the focus of attention.
For various reasons, postmodernists suggest that autumn has come in Western historiography, which manifests itself in a decrease in adherence to science and tradition. Postmodernists also consider the change in the position of Europe in the world since 1945 to be an important reason for this historiographical situation. The history of this part of the Eurasian continent is no longer a universal history.
From a postmodern perspective, the focus shifts from the past itself to the disparity between present and past, between the language we now use to talk about the past and the past itself. There is no longer a "single thread that binds the whole story." This explains the attention of postmodernists to everything that seems meaningless and inappropriate precisely from the point of view of "scientific history".
Modern trends, manifested in a change in the structure of the subject of history, have as their goal, as already noted, expansion of historical knowledge, including through new methodological ways obtaining historical knowledge through the development interdisciplinary approach and different levels and scope of vision of the object and subject of historical science, historical research. In particular, a change in ideas about the subject of history, its enrichment, is manifested in the emergence of "new", sub-subject areas of historical science. Such areas that are structural components of the subject of history as a science, such as microhistory, oral history, the history of everyday life, gender studies, the history of mentalities, etc., already have a significant tradition of existence.
5historiography Between Modernism and Postmodernism: Conrtibutions to the Methodology of the Historical Research/ Jerzy Topolski, ed.-Amsterdam, Atlanta, GA:Rodopi press, 1994.
6.See more details: Repina L.P. "New historical science" and social history.-M., 1998.
7. Kovalchenko I.D. Methods of historical research. - M., 1987. - section "Quantitative methods in historical research". See also: D.K. Simonthon. Psychology, Science, and History: An Introduction to Historiometry.-New Heaven and London: Yale University Press, 1990. Konrad H.Jaraush, Kenneth A.Hardy. Quantitative Methods for Historians: A guide to research, data, and statistics.-Chapel Hill nd London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1991.
8. Burke, P. Overture. The New History: its Past and its Future//Burke, P.(ed.) New Perspektives of Historical Writing. Pensylvania, 2001.P.1-24.
See more details: Kovalchenko I.D. Methods of historical research...; Gurevich A.L. Historical Synthesis and the Annales School. - M., 1993. Quantitative methods in Soviet and American historiography. - M., 1983.
10. Burke, P. Unity and Variety of Cultural History // Burke, P. Varieties of Cultural History.NY, 1997. Pp. 183-212.
11 The historic Turn in the Human Science.-Micigan, 1996. - P. 213, 223.
12 See the Russian translation of the publication: Kuhn T. The structure of scientific revolutions. -M., 1977.
13. The methodology of comparative historical analysis, given its importance, will be specially considered in a special section of the manual.
14 See "The Postmodern Challenge" and Perspectives on a New Cultural and Intellectual History. - In the book: Repina L.P. "New historical science" and social history. - M., 1998.
15 Frank R. Ankersmith. The Origins of Postmodernist Historiography.-In. Historiography between Modernism and Postmodernism (Contributions to the Methology of Historical Research), J.Topolsky (ed.).-Amsterdam, Atlanta, GA, 1994. - P. 87-117.
1bIbid -R. 87-88.
17. G. Vattino. The End of Modernity. Nihilism and Hermeneutics in Postmodern Culture.-London, 1988.
18. R. Torshtendap. Constructivism and representationalism in history. - In the book: Problems of source study and historiography: Materials of scientific readings. - M., 2000. - S. 68-69.
19. The Origins of Postmodernist Historiography...-P.92-93.
20. F. Ankermist. Historiography and postmodernism. - In the book: Modern methods of teaching modern and contemporary history... F. Ankersmith. History and Tropolgy. The Rise and Fall of Metaphor.-Los Angeles, London, 1994. H.White.Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth Century Europe.-Baltimore, 1973. H.White. Historism, History and the Figurative Imagination// History and theory 14 (1975)
21 F. Ankersmit. Historiography and postmodernism ... - S. 145.
22. The origins of Postmodernism...-Su102-103.
23. For a similar analysis of H. White's theory of historical research, see: R. Torstendahl. Decree op.