At all times, people have been extremely inquisitive. They wanted to know what awaits them and what was before them. Their interest in the mysteries of bygone centuries stirred up their curiosity more and more. Excitement led to the fact that people created one of the greatest sciences in the entire period of human existence - history. It is impossible to imagine what kind of event or fact prompted people to create such an offspring, nevertheless, historical science is the most ancient of all. Its origins stretch from the time of ancient Greece and Rome, when writing, political system, literature and art were just emerging. As humanity itself evolved, history developed, so today we are given a unique opportunity to look through the prism of time at those events and people who once lived and did great things. Also striking is the connection of historical science with other popular and important disciplines of our time, for example with politics, philosophy and economics. This feature shows the versatility and indispensability of history as a fundamental science. Every person dreams of knowing everything in the world, because knowledge is the most formidable weapon. Therefore, history is meant to study the past, in order to understand the present as well as possible and to foresee the future.

Is history a science or something more?

According to many scholars, modern history began in 484 BC.

It was in that year that the famous Herodotus of Halicarnassus was born, who is rightly called the "father of history." Most of his historical works made it possible to see the life and practices of ancient Greece, Scythia, Persia and other countries.

This man is the author of the famous treatise called "History". For domestic science, the works of Herodotus were like a bible. Most of the ancient tribes described by the scientist lived on the territory of modern Russia and Ukraine.

The term itself comes from the Greek language. "History" in translation means "research" or a science that studies the life and life of a person in the past. A narrower definition presents history as a science that studies historical events and facts for their objective description, study, and also in order to establish the sequence of the entire historical process.

The appearance of Herodotus and other scientists working later influenced the process of the formation of history itself. From this moment, it is possible to single out the main stages in the development of historical knowledge, which over the years has developed and more and more filled with new terms and concepts. Today, these stages are the basis in the process of studying historical science.

Stages of development of historical science

History has always developed in cycles. The process of its evolution has never been presented as a sequence. The inconstancy of man himself brought great changes to science itself, thereby developing it. Almost all stages of the development of historical knowledge have many features. These unique facts characterize each stage in its own way. There are four main stages in total, namely:

Ancient historical science.

Medieval historical science.

Historical science of the XX century.

Characteristics of the stages

It has already been pointed out earlier that the stages in the development of historical knowledge have their own characteristic features. Each of them has one or another aspect that distinguishes the stage from the array of others.

1) History was fundamental, since all subsequent interpretations of this science proceeded from the original version. This stage is characterized by the following features: a creative approach to science, historical events were described together with the geography and economics of the location, there was no scientific form of narration, no disciplines were produced.

2) The Middle Ages brought some aspects to history that were not there before. For example, already in the 17th century, a general picture of world history was formed. A unified system of reckoning was also established, and the growth of interest in the past progressed.

3) New time is a century of development of science and technology. brought to history fundamentally new approaches to the process of learning. The principles of objectivity, historicism and critical analysis of historical sources dominated in science.

4) Even with all the innovations, the stages of development of historical knowledge did not have such an explosive effect as in the 20th century. At this time, history became the foundation of politics, sociology, social psychology, etc. Science was actively used by politicians of those times for the sake of propaganda. The collapse of colonial empires also influenced the development of the stage. Many unknown states were able to join the world community and give everyone their culture.

History as a major and minor science

The fact of versatility and functionality was noted earlier. Such a judgment is proved by the fact that this science can be considered both basic and secondary. The main history gives the world not only classical knowledge about the past, but also makes a great contribution to other sciences, such as philosophy and politics. However, history can be used as a context in which the main stages of the formation of a completely different science will be considered. For example, the main historical stages in the development of ecological knowledge have developed over many years. Each of them survived a certain time frame of different eras. From here we can talk about the history of these stages.

History and politics

The ability to manage the state arose a long time ago. To learn this craft, many commanders, scientists or just wealthy citizens of any country studied for years. This skill is called politics. It can be compared with art, since for the successful management of all state processes, a person needs a little more than just talent. The politician is the sculptor whose clay is the state and its inner life. This science appeared and developed in parallel with history. Greece, in which politics arose, contributed to its development. The main stages of knowledge in history are connected with the process of formation of historical science. This is due to the fact that the historical process actually gave rise to politics. Many "venerable" politicians used their historical knowledge for the masses. But that is another topic.

The main historical stages in the development of philosophical knowledge

History and philosophy have almost always been inextricably linked with each other. These sciences supplemented and developed themselves. History allows you to look at what the world was like in the past, and philosophy shows the spiritual, identical essence of the past and man.

The parallel development of these sciences brought to the world a completely new branch of knowledge - the history of philosophy. It allows you to look at how philosophy has developed, taking into account the historical events that accompany this development. Major periods have a formational essence of socio-economic relations.

At its core, history and philosophy are related sciences. The difference is only in the way of outlook of the representatives of these sciences. If historians are only interested in chronology and other aspects of a person's life in the past, then philosophers consider the spiritual perception of the surrounding world. But the stages of development of historical knowledge help to distinguish periods of formation and development of philosophy. To date, the following stages in philosophy are distinguished:

Philosophy is ancient.

feudal philosophy.

Bourgeois formational philosophy.

Modern science philosophy.

Law of three stages

History not only gave, but also received certain benefits from the process of joint development with philosophy. Back in 1830, a theory was put forward, which later became a law. She defined her time in many ways. Its author, Auguste Comte, called the theory "The law of the three stages of the historical development of knowledge."

He suggested that any knowledge and information go through three main stages in the process of implementation in the human mind. These three theoretical stages have been identified through the study of human consciousness. By means of the law it is possible to explain and study in detail all stages of the development of historical science.

Description of the stages of the "Law of Three Stages"

Each stage has its purpose. There are only three stages: theological, metaphysical, positive. The features of each are determined by the functions that it performs.

1) Theological stage allows you to determine to get primitive knowledge about something. At the same time, the human mind is in the state of a baby. All external processes are explained by analogy with their own actions.

2) The metaphysical stage is a "transit point". At this stage, the mind strives for absolute knowledge. The only difference from the first stage is that a person is capable of abstract thinking, and not of a banal comparison.

3) The positive stage is the peak of the evolution of thinking. In the context of this stage, knowledge is introduced into a particular industry. According to Comte, this stage is the most serious, because it shows the process of evolution of certain knowledge in the human mind.

Thanks to this theory, the stages of development of historical science are filled with facts and events, and are also studied much more scrupulously. "Law" clearly shows the process of progressive development of history as a science.

History now

So, the article considered the origin and main stages of the development of historical knowledge, as well as related sciences.

History plays an important role in the modern world. It is a fundamental science in the learning process. In addition, scientists enrich science with new knowledge through the use of the latest technologies and techniques.

"History" as one of the most ancient scientific concepts. His original interpretations. Polysemy and semantic diversity of modern interpretations of the concept of history. History as a reality and a science that studies the past of human society.

The legitimacy of posing questions is whether history is a science and whether historical knowledge is objective. Is history a science or an art? The prevalence of the term "historical art" among researchers of the past and present. German philosophers F. Nietzsche and O. Spengler about history as "poetry" and "work of art".

Discussions about the boundaries and possibilities of historical knowledge. The view that all historical literature is only "conditional history". Reasons for the impossibility of writing the "final history". The essence of the thesis "History is made by the historian". Italian historian and philosopher B. Croce and the perception of historical research as a product of the mind. Absolutization of the subjective aspect, individual judgment and the way of intuitive understanding of history. French historian A.I. Marr about the inaccessibility of the essence of the historical process to the cognizing subject and the reasons for this.

Criteria and signs of rigorous science. Historical science and claims to objective truth, to a literal reflection of past reality. Degree of relativity and hypothetical nature of historical knowledge. The subject of the historian's research. Specific events and processes, taken in certain spatio-temporal coordinates, as the most important category of historical science. The problem of selectivity and optimal selection of those phenomena from the life of society that help to recreate its objective history.

To depict a historical event - does it mean to describe or explain it? Which question is more important - how did it really happen or why did it happen? Ideographism and orientation towards descriptive science. The form of "story-story", "narrative". The desire for historical explanation and the emergence of such trends as "intellectual history", "personified history", etc. The concept of causality as a category of historical explanation and the most common type of theoretical activity of the historian.

History is a kind of search and one of the forms of finding the truth. Features of the historical method of research. Logic and concreteness of knowledge. The impossibility of doing without the conceptual apparatus borrowed from other humanities. The significance for the scientific work of a historian of such categories as "society", "development", "event", "fact", "personality", "people", "nation", "state", "politics", "ideology", " culture", "economics", "war", "rebellion", "revolution", "revolution", "material", "spiritual", etc.

Historian in science and society. History as an instrument of politics. The question of preserving the autonomy of science. The functioning of science as an institution of society. Scientist as a free or not free creative personality. The concept of the scientific community and scientific authorities. The nature of their influence on the process and results of the researcher's work.

Representation of the paradigm of history. Science as a paradigm adopted by the scientific community. Change of paradigms. Achieving agreement of paradigms, goals and means of scientific activity. The turn towards the objectification of scientific knowledge, which arises for various reasons, and its consequences. "General agreement" as a criterion for the scientific nature of existing theories. The norms and values ​​that make up the ethics of science. The responsibility of historians for assessing the achievements of science.

Statement of the problem as the beginning of historical research. Influence of the topic on the direction of scientific research and methodology of work. Preferred requirements for problem selection. Scientific and non-scientific factors that predetermine it. Personal aspects of this choice. The concept of relevance in historical research. Rapprochement of historical work with writing. The inevitable connection of "historical reconstruction" with a certain level of imagination. Permissibility of conjecture and fiction in history. Intuition as a necessary component of the historical method. Cognitive value of intuition. Legitimacy of intuition and verification of truth. verification problem.

From problem to work. The process of the historian's work and its stages. Source, historian and historical fact. Modern scientific interpretations of the concept of "historical fact". The connection of the latter with the problem of the reliability of historical knowledge in general. Historical fact is the primary element of research. Its relativity, variability and instability. Establishment of a historical fact as a systemic phenomenon. Possible components of this system. German sociologist M. Weber on the subjectivity of the historian in determining the historical fact. The connection between the choice of a fact and its social significance. Socially significant facts in the understanding of the historian.

The problem of the relationship "source-historian". The positivist approach to the source as an empirical given fact. Installation of "cult" and "infallibility" of facts and its influence on the results of historical constructions. The question of the relationship between the source and the researcher in the formulation of the French historical school "Annals". Rejection of "telling a story" in favor of a history of interpretation. The priority role of the researcher in historical knowledge. The principle of problematicity and hypotheses as the main quality of research.

The unity of the methodology of source studies and the methodology of history in the paradigm of A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky. The concept of source study as an integral and systematic doctrine. A look at the source as a phenomenon of the culture of its time. The problem of criticism and interpretation of sources in historical science. The method of source study analysis and synthesis in the paradigm of the methodology of modern history. The need for a clear distinction between the concepts of scientific evidence, methods for constructing hypotheses and methods of argumentation in the structure of scientific research. Criteria for identifying novelty and evidence.

The direct impact of the completeness of the source base on the evidence and weight of the study. Solving the problem of the representativeness of the sources used. The concept of optimal knowledge. The advantages of a systematic approach to the problems of the methodology of historical research. The natural relationship of history with other social sciences - philosophy, sociology, political science, economic science, cultural studies, jurisprudence, etc. The practical significance of historical science for society. Historical science as a way to identify the experience of mankind and its application in the modern life of people.

Lecture 1. History of the fatherland.

"Respect for the past is the feature that distinguishes civility from savagery."
(A.S. Pushkin)

INTRODUCTORY

Plan

1. The role of historical education in the training of specialists at the university level.
2. Subject, content, sources of the course "National history". Domestic historiography in the past and present.
3. Methodology of historical science: about the formational and civilizational approach to the study of history.

Literature

Afanasiev Yu.N. Instead of an introduction // Soviet society: emergence, development, historical finale. T.1. - M.: RGGU, 1997.
Gumilyov L.N. Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe. - M., 1989.
Danilevsky I.N. etc. Source study. Theory, history, method. Sources of Russian history: Uch. allowance For the humanities. - M.: RGGU, 1998.
History of Russia from ancient times to the second half of the 19th century: a course of lectures / Ed. prof. B.V. Lichman. Ed. 3rd, add. - Yekaterinburg, 1994.
Klyuchevsky V.O. About Russian history. - M., 1993.
Methodology of history. Textbook for university students. - Minsk, 1996.
Problems of historical knowledge: Proceedings of the international conference in Moscow May 19-21, 1996 - M., 1999.
Savelyeva I.M., Poletaev A.V. History and time in search of the lost. - M., 1997.
Semennikova L.I. Russia in the world community of civilizations. - M., 1995.
Soviet historiography. Series: Russia of the XX century. - M.: RGGU, 1996.
Toynbee A. Comprehension of history. - M., 1991.

1. History has always aroused wide public interest. In the last decade and a half there has been an explosion of general attention to the domestic past. The condition for the increased interest in the country's past was the policy of publicity implemented by the state. In accordance with this policy, new archival documents, previously prohibited publications by domestic and foreign historians, became available to the general public.

A young person acquires the ability to understand all the published historical diversity as a result of historical education. In recent years, state education in Russia has been strengthening the humanitarian component in higher education. This will allow the future specialist to acquire in-depth knowledge of national history.
Historical knowledge is one of the most important components of human culture, and in the absence of this component, a person's education cannot be considered complete. Without knowledge of history, as social practice shows, there is not and cannot be an integral and harmonious system of philosophical, economic and socio-political views. According to N.G. Chernyshevsky, "... you can not know thousands of sciences and still be an educated person; but only a person who is completely mentally undeveloped can not love history" (Chernyshevsky N.G. Full. collected works: In 15 volumes - T. 11. - M., 1949. - S. 549).
The study of history gives people historicism of thinking - one of the prerequisites for the active, purposeful activity of the individual.
The democratic society that is being formed in Russia causes a stable social need for historical knowledge. It is historical knowledge that carries the function of social self-awareness of society, its social memory. Society's rejection or oblivion of its history, of everything that was the meaning and purpose of the activities of previous generations, gives rise to groundlessness, loss of historical memory. History is the collective memory of the people. To kill the memory of the people means to kill the people themselves, to turn them into a mankurt.
Another social function of historical knowledge is the need for social foresight. It is historical knowledge that saves us from fatalism, shows the ways of self-formation of society. V.O. Klyuchevsky notes the instructiveness of historical experience and the danger of neglecting it. History teaches even those who do not learn from it: it teaches them teaches a lesson for ignorance and neglect. Whoever acts in addition to her or contrary to her, always eventually regrets his attitude in her "(Klyuchevsky V.O. Letters. Diaries. Aphorisms and thoughts about history. - M., 1986. - P. 266).
Turning to history, to the past is determined primarily by the need to better know the present, to "look" into the future. It was precisely this property of historical knowledge that V. G. Belinsky pointed out, noting that "we question and interrogate the past so that it explains the present to us and hints to us about the future" (V. G. Belinsky. Full collection. Op. - M., 1956. Vol. 10. - P. 18).
The educational potential of history is great. The complex of historical knowledge influences the formation of people's worldview. The course "Patriotic History" in this sense is aimed at the education of patriots, respect for the past of their homeland and its critical reflection. Russia will not be prosperous and democratic until we learn to appreciate in it not only what it will become tomorrow but also what she was yesterday.

1. So what is history? For a long time, history was considered not as a science, but as literature and art. It is no coincidence that in Greek mythology, one of the muses was considered the patroness of history, depicted as a young woman with a spiritualized face and with a scroll of papyrus or parchment in her hand. The name of the muse of history - Clio - comes from the Greek word "I glorify". The first annals, chronicles, biographies mainly glorified the rulers. The word "history" (Greek) means narratives about events and is currently used in two senses: 1) to refer to the process of development of human society in time; 2) when it comes to science studying this process. It became a science in the modern sense of the word in the 18th century. In modern historical literature, there are up to 30 definitions of the subject of history as a science. The definition of the subject of history is connected with the outlook of the historian, his philosophical views.

Whatever worldview positions historians have, they all use the scientific apparatus, certain scientific categories in their research. The most important of them category "historical time" (including periodization). In this category, any event can be measured by temporal and spatial characteristics. History as a process - this is not just a set of nearby point events, but it is the movement from event to event. Historical science deals with facts that form the basis of historical knowledge. It is on the facts that representations and concepts are based. The historian gives the fact a certain meaning, which depends on his general scientific and ideological and theoretical views. There is therefore a variety interpretation historical facts. This allows us to have a diverse view of the facts, which brings us closer to the truth. Since there is no absolute truth, the movement of science goes from incomplete, relative truth to a more complete one.
That is, history as a science begins when we move from the description and retelling of events to their explanation. To study history means to explain the events and processes of the past, finding out cause-and-effect relationships, taking into account the objective and subjective factors of the historical process. The dialectic of the objective and the subjective in the historical process always gives the possibility of alternative options for its outcome.
This approach to the study of history is based on the following fundamental principles:
Scientific and objectivity- study of the totality of facts related to the issue in their interconnection, inconsistency, interaction. This eliminates the presentation of historical facts and phenomena as a chaos of chance, reveals a pattern.
The principle of historicism- the study of historical processes, phenomena, facts, taking into account the specific historical situation, in chronological order.
Creative approach to the study of the subject- means taking into account new trends, phenomena of social development, rejection of dogmatism.
Thus, subject of history is the study of society as a result of the activities of people (both individual and social groups, classes, nations), objective and subjective factors in the formation and development of the historical process, a complex multifaceted, consisting of various flows: common and uniform, opposite and contradictory. The content of the course "Patriotic History" will be the history of Russia as an integral part of the world community.
All historical sources, on the basis of which we obtain specific historical data, that is, historical knowledge, can be divided into 6 groups:

1. The largest group of sources - written sources(ancient inscriptions on stone, metal, ceramics, dishes, etc.; birch bark letters, manuscripts on papyrus, parchment, paper, printed materials, etc.).
2. material monuments(tools, coins, weapons, jewelry, household items, dishes, clothes, architectural structures, etc.).
3. Ethnographic monuments from the ancient life of various peoples.
4. Folklore materials- monuments of oral folk art.
5. Linguistic monuments- geographical names, personal names, etc.
6. Film and photo documents.

The study in the aggregate of all types of sources makes it possible to recreate a sufficiently complete and reliable picture of the historical process.
The presence of different approaches to the study of history explains the different interpretations of the historical process. One should take into account the specific nature of historical science, which, to a greater extent than natural science, depends on the ideological situation in society, and for which the monopoly of one ideology or another on spiritual domination in society is destructive.
Patriotic historiography open the first written sources - annals. The review of national history was begun by the ancient Russian chronicler Nestor (XI - early XII centuries), the author of the first edition of The Tale of Bygone Years ("Where did the Russian land come from").
With the formation of the Russian state with its center in Moscow, there is a need to determine its place among other countries, to justify the origin, inviolability and eternity of the tsarist autocracy. In 1560-63. an attempt is made to write the history of the country by publishing the Book of Powers, where history is presented as a change of reigns and reigns.
During the formation of the empire of Peter I, "the chick of Petrov's nest" - Vasily Nikitich Tatishchev(1686-1750) in his work "Russian History from Ancient Times" (in 4 books) - makes the first attempt to create a generalizing work on the history of Russia. He introduced many new sources into scientific circulation: Russkaya Pravda, Sudebnik 1550, and a number of chronicles. In his work, he proves the usefulness of autocracy, the harm of aristocratic rule, the need for obedience to the king. The review of the events of his work covers from Scythian times to the end of the 16th century. (reign of Ivan the Terrible). Thus, in the era of Peter I, the history of Russia is being comprehended as the history of the Russian state.
Nikolai Mikhailovich Karamzin(1766-1826), being the founder of Russian sentimentalism, the publisher of popular magazines ("Moscow Journal", "Bulletin of Europe"), devoted his main work to history - "History of the Russian State" in 12 volumes. His concept is "statehood": Russia is a huge country and its state system should be a monarchy. According to Karamzin, the successes of the autocracy determined the well-being of Russia, the periods of decline of the autocratic regime brought trouble to the country. On the positive and negative examples of the rule of Russian monarchs, he wanted to teach to reign for the benefit of the people.
Sergei Mikhailovich Solovyov(1820-1879) defined a whole stage of historical science in the 19th century. His work "History of Russia from Ancient Times" (in 29 volumes) is significant in content and abundance of sources used, it examines the development of Russian statehood from Rurik to Catherine II. Considering statehood as the main force of the social process, he recognized the internal conditioning and regularity of the historical process, success in the development of statehood, did not attribute to the king, autocracy, attached importance to nature, the geographical environment in history. He explained all phenomena in history by internal causes.
Vasily Osipovich Klyuchevsky(1841-1911) - a follower of Solovyov's ideas. In the "Course of Russian History" (in 5 volumes), V.O. Klyuchevsky was the first among Russian historians to move away from periodization according to the reigns of monarchs. In his opinion, history is divided into periods: Dnieper, Upper Volga, Moscow or Great Russian, All-Russian. The theoretical construction of Klyuchevsky is based on the triad: "the human person, human society and the nature of the country." The main place in the "Course of Russian History" is occupied by questions of the socio-economic history of Russia. The term "people" is used in an ethnic and ethical sense. It gives vivid descriptions of historical figures, an original interpretation of sources, a broad display of the cultural life of Russian society.
At the end of the XIX century. as a result of the spread of Marxism in Russia, a new interpretation of the facts of Russian history appears. The starting point of the concept is the socio-economic predetermination of the development of society, and the historical process is interpreted as a change in socio-economic formations as a result of the class struggle. Marxist conception of history created Mikhail Nikolaevich Pokrovsky(1868-1922). It was reflected in his work "Russian history from ancient times" (in 5 volumes). M. Pokrovsky is considered the founder of the school of Soviet historians. Despite the dominance of the Marxist concept in Soviet historiography, a number of historians worked fruitfully, solving problems: the ethnogenesis of the Slavs, the emergence and development of Russian statehood, the history of Russian culture, etc. The initial centuries of Russian history were studied by B.A. Rybakov, A.P. Novoseltsev, I. .Ya.Froyanov, P.P.Tolochko, L.N.Gumilyov; the Middle Ages - A.A. Zimin, V.B. Kobrin, D.A. Alshits, R.G. Skrynnikov, A.L. Khoroshkevich; the era of Peter's transformations - N.I. Pavlenko, V.I. Buganov, E.V. Anisimov; the history of Russian culture - D.S. Likhachev, M.N. Tikhomirov, A.M. Sakharov, B.I. Krasnobaev and others. Many works of these authors were published and received recognition not only in our country, but also abroad. A peculiar historical concept in historical science is confirmed by the works Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov(1912-1992) . Full member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, Doctor of Geography and Doctor of Historical Sciences, created a new direction of science - ethnology lying at the junction of several branches of knowledge: history, ethnography, psychology and biology. L. Gumilyov wrote about the Huns, Turks, Khazars, Mongols, Russians. Among his monographs are: "Geography of the ethnos in the historical period", "Ethnogenesis and the biosphere of the Earth", "Ancient Russia and the Great Steppe", "From Russia to Russia", etc.
Among historians and works of recent years, of particular interest is the study of the Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of Moscow State University. M.V. Lomonosov Lyudmila Ivanovna Semennikova. In his work "Russia in the World Community of Civilizations" the author gives his own view on the peculiarities of the choice of the country's development path, comparing its history with the countries of the West and the East.
A characteristic feature of the state of historical science at the present stage is the phenomenon of "blank spots". We are surprised to learn that many of our historical information is false, does not correspond to what was. Another circumstance characteristic of modern historiography was the change in the idealization of the Soviet period of history, accompanied by the "denigration" of the pre-October period, by the opposite trend - the idealization of the pre-October period and the "denigration" of the Soviet one. This gives rise to doubts about the objectivity of historical knowledge and testifies to its dependence on political or other conditions.
It must be admitted that so far it has not been possible to create a multi-conceptual history of Russia in the 20th century.

1. An important place in the study of history is given to the methodology of historical science. It defines the "path of inquiry". The methodology of history studies the nature, principles and methods of historical knowledge.

All countries of the world have their own directions, which are called "schools", the methodology of the study of history.
In American historical science, the direction of psychohistory is popular, which makes it possible to identify the mental motivation of historical processes and create a psychological concept of personality. The direction of the French Annales school is very influential in Western historical science. Supporters of this school view history as the interaction of the three main elements of society - economic structure, social organization and culture. A special role is given to individual and mass consciousness in the functioning of social systems. Proponents of this direction seek to approach the understanding of society as a whole.
In modern German historical science, the neoliberal direction plays an increasingly important role, which includes elements of different methodologies, elements of different methodologies, including Marxism, in order to adequately reflect the entire complexity of historical development. There is an awareness of the great and enduring value of the spiritual heritage of Europe, as a guideline for the exit at the end of the twentieth century. From the crisis of all mankind, Western civilization from European turns into a world one.
In modern Russia, as well as in the methodology of the historical sciences of the CIS countries, the problem of the correlation of formational, civilizational and technological approaches is currently relevant. This problem arose in connection with the crisis of the concept of the formational society that dominated Soviet historical science, the active introduction of civilizational and informational approaches.
What does a formational approach to the study of history mean? It is based on the theory of K. Marx, according to which the primary role in determining the formations is associated with the mode of production, forms of ownership and social class relations. Social development was defined as a process of transition from lower formations to a higher one, a society of social justice. There are five formations: primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist, socialist, the end result of which will be the building of communism. However, the formational approach gave rise to many questions and inconsistencies in the study of the diversity of human history. The peculiarities of countries and peoples with their stable social ties and structure were ignored (for example, China - what formation was it at the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries?). The revolutionary path was absolutized through the class struggle of changing formations, microanalysis at the level of the community, family, individual and people's worldview, their psychology, spiritual values ​​were underestimated.
In connection with the departure of some historians from the Marxist interpretation of history, interest in the civilizational concept developed in the works of N.Ya. Danilevsky, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee increased. The concept of civilization appeared in the 18th century. as a synonym for the concept of "culture".
N.Ya.Danilevsky(1822-1885) in his work "Russia and Europe. A look at the cultural and political relations of the Slavic world to the German one" (1869) formulated the idea of ​​local civilizations. They, like a living organism, go through the stages of birth, maturation, decrepitude, death.
Civilization concept A. Toynbee(1885-1975), an English historian and sociologist, was developed in his 12-volume work "Comprehension of History". He divided the world-historical process into 21 relatively closed civilizations that have gone through all the stages of their development.
What is civilization? Civilization (lat. "civilis" - civil, state) - a historically established set of material and spiritual culture, social system, lifestyle, value system and norms of behavior of a particular people, society or an entire era. This is one of the many existing definitions of the concept of civilization. Among the variety of civilizational flows in the entire history of mankind being studied, the author of the book "Russia in the World Community of Civilizations" - L.I. Semennikova introduces an enlarged unit of analysis - the type of civilization. The types of civilizations are determined by a set of features that reflect those characteristic of many and special for existing societies (See: Semennikova L.I., op. cit., p.39). The following types of civilizations are distinguished: non-progressive, cyclical (Eastern), European (Western). The main signs, features, features of these types of civilizations are given in the above-mentioned work by L.I. Semennikova (pp. 40-80).
The civilizational approach to the study of history makes it possible to include a person as the highest value of historical knowledge, to take into account the material, spiritual, cultural and religious characteristics of various societies in their historical continuity. The civilizational approach has its drawbacks: some subjectivism and speculation, complication, sometimes the impossibility of synchronous comparison and understanding of the progressive development of world history.
Attention is drawn to the technological approach to understanding history, which is based on a particular level of technical production. His concept of "post-industrial society" was opposed to the change of social formations through social progress.
The informational approach has become widespread (England, the Netherlands, Germany, Scandinavian countries). It is associated with the computerization of research work, the emergence of historical informatics. In all the variety of methodological approaches, the approach of their combination, rather than mutual exclusion, may be reasonable.

In the midst of April Fool's Day, I think it will be useful to clearly explain why people who consider history not science are not very smart themselves. On the Internet, you can find a bunch of forums and various topics created on them: whether history is science. Here are some of the arguments of such people about this:

Each new government rewrites history for itself, there is no objectivity.

There is no way to check how everything really happened, and all history books lie.

Historians are storytellers, etc., etc.

The funny thing is that such a point of view (history is not science) is supported by people, even with higher education, and in all seriousness. Such thoughts have a harmful effect primarily on children who do not understand why they should study "fictitious" science. In a word, laughter and sin. So, is history a science or not?

Any science, whatever you take, has common features of scientific character for all sciences. Actually, by the presence of these signs, one can judge whether science is in front of you or not. These are the signs:

The presence of the object of study. An object is that part of reality that science studies. The peculiarity of history is that its object lies outside the present time. The object of study of history is the historical process. The historical process is the process of transformation of all spheres of people's lives over time. Exaggerating, we can say that the historical process is, for example, the evolution of the family (patriarchal => nuclear, for example), the evolution of the city, social relations, culture. History answers the question: how and why human society develops; reveals the driving factors and conditions for the development of society.

I think it is clear that history has an object of science. Each person wants to know who his parents are, if any, and who his grandfathers, great-grandfathers, grandmothers, great-grandmothers, etc. were.

The second sign of scientificity is the presence of clear methods of cognition. For example, in chemistry, biology, you can study the structure of matter by observing through a microscope. In physics, there are clear instruments for measuring on one or another scale: current strength, temperature, etc. Are there such methods in history? Is it possible to know the past?

Yes, they exist, yes you can. How do historians learn about certain facts? From sources. Remember forever: amateurs read books, professionals read sources: documents, annals, chronographs. Yes, but you can also lie to them, right? Therefore, researchers are armed with source study analysis: they study the history of the creation of the source, the conditions for writing it, in the end, not one source is taken, but several. And through comparative analysis, scientists reach the truth.

In addition to written sources, there are also archaeological ones. By the way, I recommend reading an article on the topic about. According to the alleged event, it is established what exactly happened? It's very similar to investigating a crime. Only unlike forensics, history, as a rule, deals with people who have already died. More precisely, with their things ("evidence"), etc.

History does not disdain modern technical methods: radiocarbon analysis, or the use of geoinformation methods. I think you understand that with the second sign of scientific history, everything is also tip-top. We go further.

Any science has established scientific centers, personnel, institutions. That is, it is institutionalized. History too: there are established scientific schools, both in Russia and abroad.

Well, the thesis that nothing can be verified is not entirely true. Today, there are a lot of experiments when scientists recreate the realities of the primitive era: for example, they try to make tools from stone, etc. When I was in Luxembourg, I was in the local national museum (entrance 1 euro, which you get at the exit :)). There are seven floors. Moreover, the first floor is a primitive era, where the dwellings of ancient people are recreated. Strongly. In addition, today the tribes live far from the so-called civilization. Watching the life of such a tribe, you can verify a lot of things.

Further the thesis that history is often rewritten. Rewrite, my dear, not historical facts, but their interpretation. It should also be understood that this very interpretation depends not only on those in power, but also on the findings of new historical sources.

Here, for example, in 2004, scientists discovered the mound of Rurik. Yes, yes, that same Rurik. So, how will the personality of this person acquire more serious weight in historical research?

It's one thing when you read about Rurik in the annals. And quite another thing - when you find his mound - archaeological confirmation. This is how the truth is established. What did you think.

So people who claim that history is not science can hardly be called smart. So let's call them stupid on April Fool's Day 🙂

From the editor: We thank the European University Press at St. Petersburg for the opportunity to publish a fragment from the book of the historian Ivan Kurilla "History, or the Past in the Present" (St. Petersburg, 2017).

Let's now talk about historical science - how much does it suffer from violent storms in the historical consciousness of society?

History as a scientific discipline is experiencing overload from different sides: the state of the historical consciousness of society is an external challenge, while the accumulated problems within science, calling into question the methodological foundations of the discipline and its institutional structure, represent internal pressure.

Plurality of subjects ("History in fragments")

Already in the 19th century, history began to fragment according to the subject of study: in addition to political history, the history of culture, economics appeared, and later social history, the history of ideas, and many areas studying various aspects of the past were added to them.

Finally, the most uncontrollable process was the fragmentation of history according to the subject of historical questioning. It can be said that the process of fragmentation of history is driven by the identity politics described above. In Russia, the fragmentation of history by social and gender groups was slower than by ethnic and regional variants.

Together with the fragmentation of the methodology used by historians, this situation led to the fragmentation of not only historical consciousness in general, but also the field of historical science itself, which by the end of the century was, in the words of the Moscow historian M. Boytsov (in the sensational professional environment in the 1990s article), a pile of "fragments". Historians have come to the conclusion that it is impossible to unite not only historical narrative, but also historical science.

The reader has already understood, of course, that the idea of ​​the possibility of the only true historical narrative, the only correct and final version of history is opposed to the modern view of the essence of history. You can often hear questions addressed to historians: well, how was it in reality, what is the truth? After all, if one historian writes about some event in this way, and another - in a different way, does it mean that one of them is mistaken? Can they come to a compromise and understand how it was "really"? There is a demand for such a story in society (from such expectations, the recent attempt by the popular writer Boris Akunin to become the “new Karamzin”, and, to some extent, disputes about the “single textbook” of history are growing). Society, as it were, requires historians to agree, finally, to write a single textbook in which “the whole truth” will be stated.

Indeed, there are some problems in history that can be compromised, but there are also those where this is impossible: it is usually a story told by “different voices” related to the identity of a particular social group. The history of an authoritarian state and the history of the victims of some kind of “great turn” is unlikely to ever create a “compromise option”. An analysis of the interests of the state will help to understand why certain decisions were made, and this will be a logical explanation. But his logic will in no way “balance” the history of those people who, as a result of these decisions, lost their fortune, health, and sometimes life - and this story will also be true about the past. These two views on history can be presented in different chapters of the same textbook, but there are many more such points of view than two: it is difficult, for example, to reconcile the history of different regions in a large multinational country. Moreover, the past provides historians with the opportunity to create many narratives, and the bearers of different value systems (as well as different social groups) can write their own "history textbook", in which they can describe history in terms of nationalism or internationalism, stateism or anarchy, liberalism or traditionalism. Each of these stories will be internally consistent (although, probably, in each such story there will be silence about some aspects of the past that are important for other authors).

It is apparently impossible to create a single and consistent story about history that unites all points of view - and this is one of the most important axioms of historical science. If historians put an end to the “unity of history” quite a long time ago, then the awareness of the immanent inconsistency of history as a text is a relatively new phenomenon. It is connected with the above-mentioned disappearance of the gap between the present and the recent past, with the interference of memory in the process of historical reflection of modern society.

Modern historians are faced with a problem with this multitude of narratives, the multitude of stories about the past, which are produced by different social groups, different regions, ideologists and states. Some of these narratives are confrontational and potentially contain the germ of social conflict, but the choice between them has to be made not on the basis of their scientific nature, but on the basis of ethical principles, thereby establishing a new connection between history and morality. One of the newest tasks of historical science is to work on the seams between these narratives. The modern idea of ​​history as a whole looks more like not a single stream, but a blanket sewn from different patches. We are doomed to live at the same time with different interpretations and be able to establish a conversation about a common past, maintaining differences, or rather polyphony.

historical sources

Any historian will agree with the thesis formulated by the positivists that reliance on sources is the main feature of historical science. This remains as true for modern historians as it was for Langlois and Segnobos. It is the methods of searching and processing sources that are taught to students at historical faculties. However, in a little over a hundred years, the content of this concept has changed, and the main professional practice of historians has been challenged.

In order to understand the difference in attitudes towards the sources of historical science and the practice that preceded it, it must be recalled that what we call the falsification of documents was not uncommon in the Middle Ages and was not at all condemned. The whole culture was built on respect for authority, and if something was attributed to authority that was not said by him, but certainly good, then there was no reason to doubt it. Thus, the main criterion for the truth of a document was the good that this document provided.

For the first time, Lorenzo Valla, who proved the forgery of the “correct document”, did not dare to publish his “Reflection on the fictitious and false donation of Constantine” - the work was published only half a century after the author’s death, when the Reformation had already begun in Europe.

Over the course of several centuries, historians have developed ever more subtle ways of determining the authenticity of a document, its authorship, and dating in order to exclude the use of fakes in their work.

The "past", as we found out, is a problematic concept, but the texts of the sources are real, they can be literally touched, re-read, and checked the logic of predecessors. The questions formulated by historians are addressed precisely to these sources. The first sources were living people with their stories, and this type of source (limited by time and space) is still important when working with recent and modern history: twentieth-century "oral history" projects have brought significant results.

The next type of sources were official documents left over from the day-to-day activities of various kinds of bureaucracy, including legislation and international treaties, but also numerous registration papers. Leopold von Ranke preferred diplomatic documents from the state archives to other types of documents. Statistics - state and commercial - allows you to apply quantitative methods in the analysis of the past. Personal memories and memoirs traditionally attract readers and are also traditionally considered very unreliable: memoirists, for obvious reasons, tell the version of events they need. However, given the interest of the author and after comparison with other sources, these texts can give a lot to understand the events, motives of behavior and details of the past. The materials of the periodical press have been used by historians since its inception: no other source allows us to understand the synchronism of various events, from politics and economics to culture and local news, like the pages of newspapers. Finally, the Annales school proved that any object that bears traces of human influence can become a source for the historian; a garden or a park laid out according to a certain plan, or varieties of plants and animal breeds bred by man, will not be left aside. The accumulation of significant amounts of information and the development of mathematical methods for its processing promise great breakthroughs in the research of the past with the beginning of the use of Big Data processing tools by historians.

However, it is important to understand that in and of themselves, until the historian's field of interest, a text, information, or material object is not a source. Only the question asked by the historian makes them so.

In the last third of the twentieth century, however, this practice was challenged. By postulating the inaccessibility of the past, postmodernists have reduced the work of historians to the transformation of some texts into others. And in this situation, the question of the truth of this or that text faded into the background. Much more importance was given to the problem of what role the text plays in culture and society. "Konstantin's gift" determined state-political relations in Europe for many centuries and was exposed only when it had already lost its real influence. So what does it matter if it was a fake?

The professional practice of historians also came into conflict with the instrumental approach to history that is spreading in society: if the past is not recognized as an independent value and the past should work for the present, then the sources are not important. The conflict that broke out in the summer of 2015 between the director of the State Archives of the Russian Federation Sergey Mironenko, who presented documentary evidence of the composition of the “feat of 28 Panfilov’s men” in the battle for Moscow in 1941, and the Minister of Culture of the Russian Federation Vladimir Medinsky, who defended the “correct myth” from its verification by sources, is indicative.

“Any historical event, having ended, becomes a myth - positive or negative. The same can be attributed to historical figures. Our heads of state archives should conduct their research, but life is such that people operate not with archival information, but with myths. References can strengthen these myths, destroy them, turn them upside down. Well, the public mass consciousness always operates with myths, including in relation to history, so this must be treated with reverence, care, and caution.
Vladimir Medinsky

In fact, politicians not only express their claims to control history, but also deny the right of historians to expert judgment about the past, equating professional knowledge based on documents with "mass consciousness" based on myths. The conflict between the archivist and the minister could be classified as a curiosity if it did not fit into the logic of the development of the historical consciousness of modern society, which led to the dominance of presentism.

Thus, having parted with positivism, we suddenly found ourselves in the face of a new Middle Ages, in which a “good purpose” justifies the falsification of sources (or their biased selection).

Laws of history

At the end of the 19th century, the debate about the scientific nature of history focused on its ability to discover the laws of human development. Throughout the 20th century, the very concept of science has evolved. Today, science is often defined as "a field of human activity aimed at developing and systematizing objective knowledge about reality" or as "description with the help of concepts." History certainly fits into these definitions. In addition, various sciences use the historical method or historical approach to phenomena. Finally, one must understand that this is a conversation about the correlation of concepts developed by European civilization itself, and these concepts are historical, i.e. change over time.

And yet - are there historical laws, "laws of history"? If we talk about the laws of development of society, then this question should obviously be redirected to sociology, which studies the laws of human development. The laws of development of human societies certainly exist. Some of them are statistical in nature, some allow you to see causal relationships in a repeating sequence of historical events. It is precisely this kind of laws that are most often declared by supporters of the status of history as "rigorous science" as "the laws of history."

However, these "laws of history" were most often developed ("discovered") not by historians, but by scientists involved in related sciences of society - sociologists and economists. Moreover, many researchers single out a separate field of knowledge - macrosociology and historical sociology, who consider such scientists as "their" classics such scientists as Karl Marx (economist) and Max Weber (sociologist), Immanuel Wallerstein and Randall Collins (macrosociologists), Perry Anderson and even Fernand Braudel (historians also consider only the last of the list to be their classic). In addition, historians themselves very rarely in their writings offer formulas for the laws of history or somehow refer to such laws. At the same time, questions posed within the framework of macro-sociological, as well as economic, political science, philology and other social science and humanitarian disciplines, historians with great pleasure ask the past, thus transferring the theories of related sciences to the material of the past.

It's easier to talk about historical discoveries. There are two types of discoveries in history: the discovery of new sources, archives, memoirs, or the posing of a new problem, question, approach, turning into sources what was not previously considered sources, or allowing one to find something new in old sources. Thus, a discovery in history can be not only a birch bark found during excavations, but also a new research question.

Let's dwell on this point in a little more detail. Since the days of the Annales school, historians have begun their work by posing a research question - this requirement seems to be common to all sciences today. In the practice of historical research, however, there is constantly repeated clarification and reformulation of the question in the process of working on it.

The historian, in accordance with the model of the hermeneutic circle, constantly refines his research question on the basis of the data he receives from sources. The final formulation of the historian's research question becomes the formula of the relationship of the present to the past, established by scientists. It turns out that the research question itself is not only the starting point, but also one of the most important results of the study.

This description well illustrates the idea of ​​history as a science of the interaction of modernity with the past: the right question determines the “potential difference”, maintaining tension and establishing a connection between modernity and the period under study (unlike those social sciences that seek to find an answer precisely to the originally posed question).

Examples of the laws of history can be the repetitive patterns of using the past in modern debates (the selection in the past of plots and problems that help in solving today's problems or in the struggle for a group vision of the future; the limitations of such selection, the influence of scientific works and journalism on the formation of the historical consciousness of society), and also ways of setting goals and obtaining historical knowledge.

Notes

1. Cliometry is a direction in historical science based on the systematic application of quantitative methods. The heyday of cliometry came in the 1960s and 70s. Published in 1974, Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery by Stanley Engerman and Robert Vogel ( Fogel R.W., Engerman S.L. Time on the Cross: The Economics of American Negro Slavery. Boston; Toronto: Little, Brown, and Company, 1974) was the cause of fierce controversy (the conclusions about the economic efficiency of slavery in the US South were perceived by some critics as a justification for slavery) and showed the possibilities of cliometry. In 1993, one of the authors of the book, Robert Fogel, was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics, including for this research.

6. Monuments of cultural heritage - a strategic priority of Russia // Izvestiya. Nov 22, 2016

7. The hermeneutic circle was described by G.-G. Gadamer: “It is possible to understand something only thanks to pre-existing assumptions about it, and not when it is presented to us as something absolutely mysterious. The fact that anticipations can be a source of errors in interpretation and that prejudices that promote understanding can also lead to misunderstanding, is only an indication of the finitude of such a being as man, and the manifestation of this finitude of him ”( Gadamer G.-G. About the circle of understanding // The relevance of the beautiful. M.: Art, 1991).