MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND YOUTH POLICY

KHANTY-MANSIYSKY AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT - YUGRA

State educational institution

higher professional education

Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Ugra

"Surgut State Pedagogical University"

MAIN METHODS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH

Essay

Completed by: Vorobieva E.V. group B-3071,IVGFS rate Checked by: Medvedev V.V.

Surgut

2017

CONTENT

INTRODUCTION

The modern historian is faced with the difficult task of developing a research methodology, which should be based on knowledge and understanding of the possibilities of the methods existing in historical science, as well as a balanced assessment of their usefulness, effectiveness, and reliability.

In Russian philosophy, three levels of scientific methods are distinguished: general, general, and particular. The division is based on the degree of regulativeness of cognitive processes.

The universal methods include philosophical methods that are used at the basis of all cognitive procedures and allow us to explain all processes and phenomena in nature, society and thinking.

General methods are applied at all stages of the cognitive process (empirical and theoretical) and by all sciences. At the same time, they are focused on understanding certain aspects of the phenomenon under study.

The third group is private methods. These include the methods of a specific science - for example, a physical or biological experiment, observation, mathematical programming, descriptive and genetic methods in geology, comparative analysis in linguistics, measurement methods in chemistry, physics, etc.

Private methods are directly related to the subject of study of science and reflect its specificity. Each science develops its own system of methods, which is developed and supplemented by related disciplines along with the development of science. This is also characteristic of history, where, along with the traditionally established methods of source study and historiographic analysis based on logical operations, statistical methods began to be used, mathematical modeling, mapping, observation, polling, etc.

Within the framework of a specific science, the main methods are also distinguished - basic for this science (in history it is historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological, historical-systemic, historical-dynamic) and helper methods, with the help of which its individual, particular problems are solved.

In the process of scientific research, general, general and particular methods interact and form a single whole - methodology. The general method used reveals the most general principles of human thought. General methods make it possible to accumulate and analyze the necessary material, as well as to give the obtained scientific results - knowledge and facts - a logically consistent form. Private methods are designed to solve specific issues that reveal certain aspects of a cognizable object.

1. GENERAL SCIENTIFIC METHODS OF KNOWLEDGE

General scientific methods include observation and experiment, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, analogy and hypothesis, logical and historical, modeling, etc.

Observation and experiment are general scientific methods of cognition, especially widely used in natural science. By observation they mean perception, living contemplation, directed by a specific task without direct interference with the natural course in natural conditions. An essential condition for scientific observation is the promotion of a particular hypothesis, idea, proposal. .

An experiment is such a study of an object when the researcher actively influences it by creating artificial conditions necessary to reveal certain properties, or by changing the course of the process in a given direction.

The cognitive activity of a person, aimed at revealing the essential properties, relationships and connections of objects, first of all singles out from the totality of observed facts those that are involved in his practical activity. A person mentally, as it were, dismembers an object into its component parts, properties, parts. Studying, for example, a tree, a person singles out different parts and sides in it; trunk, roots, branches, leaves, color, shape, size, etc. Cognition of a phenomenon by decomposing it into components is called analysis. In other words, analysis as a method of thinking is a mental decomposition of an object into its constituent parts and sides, which gives a person the opportunity to separate objects or any of their sides from those random and transient connections in which they are given to him in perception. Without analysis, no cognition is possible, although analysis still does not single out the connections between the sides, the properties of phenomena. The latter are established by synthesis. Synthesis is a mental union of elements dissected by analysis .

A person mentally decomposes an object into its constituent parts in order to discover these parts themselves, in order to find out what the whole consists of, and then considers it as composed of these parts, but already examined separately.

Only gradually comprehending what happens to objects when performing practical actions with them, a person began to mentally analyze, synthesize a thing. Analysis and synthesis are the main methods of thinking, because the processes of connection and separation, creation and destruction form the basis of all processes in the world and practical human activity.

Induction and deduction. As a research method, induction can be defined as the process of inducing general position from the observation of a number of isolated facts. On the contrary, deduction is the process of analytical reasoning from the general to the particular. The inductive method of cognition, which requires going from facts to laws, is dictated by the very nature of the cognizable object: in it, the general exists in unity with the individual, the particular. Therefore, in order to comprehend the general pattern, it is necessary to investigate single things, processes.

Induction is only a moment of movement of thought. It is closely related to deduction: any single object can be comprehended only by being included in the system of concepts already existing in your mind. .

The objective basis of the historical and logical methods of cognition is the real history of the development of a cognizable object in all its concrete diversity and the main, leading trend, the pattern of this development. Thus, the history of the development of mankind is the dynamics of the life of all the peoples of our planet. Each of them has its own unique history, its own characteristics, expressed in everyday life, customs, psychology, language, culture, etc. World history is an infinitely variegated picture of the life of mankind in various eras and countries. Here is necessary, and accidental, and essential, I am secondary, and unique, and similar, and singular, and general. . But, despite this endless variety of life paths of various peoples, there is something in common in their history. All peoples, as a rule, went through the same socio-economic formations. The commonality of human life is manifested in all areas: economic, social, and spiritual. It is this commonality that expresses the objective logic of history. The historical method involves the study of a specific development process, and the logical method - the study general patterns movement of the object of knowledge. The logical method is nothing else than the same historical method, only freed from its historical form and from the contingencies that violate it.

The essence of the modeling method is to reproduce the properties of an object on its specially arranged analogue - a model. A model is a conditional image of an object. Although any modeling coarsens and simplifies the object of knowledge, it serves as an important auxiliary means of research. It makes it possible to study the processes characteristic of the original, in the absence of the original itself, which is often necessary due to the inconvenience or impossibility of studying the object itself. .

General scientific methods of cognition do not replace concrete scientific methods of research; on the contrary, they are refracted in the latter and are in dialectical unity with them. Together with them they perform common task- a reflection of the objective world in the human mind. General scientific methods significantly deepen knowledge and make it possible to reveal more general properties and regularities of reality.

2. SPECIAL METHODS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH

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

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

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

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

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

The limitations of this method are the lack of attention to statics, i.e. to fixing some temporal given of historical phenomena and processes, the danger of relativism may arise. In addition, he “gravitates towards descriptiveness, factualism and empiricism. Finally, the historical-genetic method, for all its antiquity and breadth of application, does not have a developed and clear logic and conceptual apparatus. Therefore, his methodology, and hence his technique, are vague and uncertain, which makes it difficult to compare and bring together the results of individual studies. .

Idiographic method was proposed by G. Rickert as the main method of history . G.Rikkert reduced the essence of the idiographic method to the description of individual features, unique and exceptional features of historical facts, which are formed by a historian on the basis of their “reference to value”. In his opinion, history individualizes events, highlighting them from an infinite set of so-called. "historical individual", which meant both the nation and the state, a separate historical figure .

Based on the idiographic method, it is appliedideographic method - a way to unambiguously record concepts and their relationships using signs, or a descriptive method. The idea of ​​the ideographic method goes back to Lullio and Leibniz .

Historical-genetic method close to the ideographic method, especially when used at the first stage of historical research, when information is extracted from sources, their systematization and processing. Then the researcher's attention is focused on individual historical facts and phenomena, on their description, as opposed to identifying developmental features. .

cognitive functionscomparative historical method :

Identification of signs in phenomena of a different order, their comparison, comparison;

Elucidation of the historical sequence of the genetic connection of phenomena, the establishment of their generic relationships and relationships in the process of development, the establishment of differences in phenomena;

Generalization, construction of a typology of social processes and phenomena. Thus, this method is wider and more meaningful than comparisons and analogies. The latter do not act as a special method of historical science. They can be applied in history, as well as in other areas of knowledge, and regardless of the comparative historical method.

In general, the historical-comparative method has broad cognitive capabilities. .

Firstly, it allows revealing the essence of the studied phenomena in those cases when it is not obvious, on the basis of the available facts; to identify the general and repetitive, necessary and natural, on the one hand, and qualitatively different, on the other. This fills in the gaps and completes the study.

Secondly, the historical-comparative method makes it possible to go beyond the phenomena under study and, on the basis of analogies, to come to broad historical generalizations and parallels.

Thirdly, it allows the application of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method.

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

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

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

The historical-comparative method is inherent in a certain limitation, and one should also bear in mind the difficulties of its application. This method as a whole is not aimed at revealing the reality in question. Through it, first of all, the root essence of reality in all its diversity, and not its specific specificity, is known. It is difficult to use the historical-comparative method in the study of dynamics public processes. The formal application of the historical-comparative method is fraught with erroneous conclusions and observations .

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

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

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

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

The inductive approach differs in that here both the selection of types and the identification of their most characteristic features are based on an analysis of empirical data. It is necessary to follow this path in cases where the manifestations of the individual in the particular and the particular in the general are diverse and unstable.

In cognitive terms, the most effective typification is one that allows not only to single out the corresponding types, but also to establish both the degree to which objects belong to these types and the measure of their similarity with other types. This requires methods of multidimensional typology.

Its application brings the greatest scientific effect in the study of homogeneous phenomena and processes, although the scope of the method is not limited to them. In the study of both homogeneous and heterogeneous types, it is equally important that the objects under study be comparable in terms of the main fact for this typification, in terms of the most characteristics underlying historical typology .

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

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

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

Finally, the historical process in its time span has qualitatively different stages or stages, which include a certain set of events and situations that make up subsystems in a common dynamic system community development .

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

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

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

From the point of view of specific content, the solution of this problem is reduced to the identification of system-forming (systemic) features inherent in the components of the selected system.

After the identification of the corresponding system, its analysis as such follows. Structural analysis is central here, i.e. identification of the nature of the relationship between the components of the system and their properties, the result of structural and system analysis will be knowledge about the system as such. This knowledge is empirical in nature, because it does not in itself reveal the essential nature of the revealed structure. The transfer of the acquired knowledge to the theoretical level requires the identification of the functions of this system in the hierarchy of systems, where it appears as a subsystem. This problem is solved by functional analysis, which reveals the interaction of the system under study with higher-level systems. .

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

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

Retrospective method . A distinctive feature of this method is the direction from the present to the past, from the effect to the cause. In its content, the retrospective method acts, first of all, as a reconstruction technique that allows you to synthesize, correct knowledge about the general nature of the development of phenomena .

The technique of retrospective cognition consists in sequential penetration into the past in order to identify the cause of a given event. Speech in this case goes about the root cause, directly related to this event, and not about its distant historical roots. Retro-analysis shows, for example, that the root cause of domestic bureaucracy lies in the Soviet party-state structure, although they tried to find it in Nicholas Russia, and in the Petrine reforms, and in the bureaucracy of the Muscovite kingdom. If in retrospection the path of knowledge is a movement from the present to the past, then in the construction of a historical explanation it is from the past to the present in accordance with the principle of diachrony .

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

The first step in the work of a historian is the compilation of a chronology. The second step is periodization. The historian cuts history into periods, replaces the elusive continuity of time with some signifying structure. Relations of discontinuity and continuity are revealed: continuity takes place within periods, discontinuity - between periods.

Periodization means, therefore, to identify discontinuities, discontinuities, to indicate what exactly is changing, to date these changes and give them a preliminary definition. Periodization deals with the identification of continuity and its violations. It opens the way for interpretation. It makes history, if not quite understandable, then at least already conceivable.

The historian does not reconstruct time in its entirety for each new study: he takes the time that other historians have already worked on, the periodization of which is available. Since the question being asked acquires legitimacy only as a result of its inclusion in the research field, the historian cannot abstract from previous periodizations: after all, they constitute the language of the profession.

The diachronic method is typical for structural-diachronic research, which is a special type of research activity, when the task of identifying the features of the construction of various processes in time is solved. Its specificity is revealed through comparison with the synchronistic approach. The terms "diachrony" (simultaneity) and "synchrony" (simultaneity), introduced into linguistics by the Swiss linguist F. de Saussure, characterize the sequence of development of historical phenomena in a certain area of ​​reality (diachrony) and the state of these phenomena at a certain point in time (synchrony) .

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

CONCLUSION

Methods of scientific knowledge is a set of techniques, norms, rules and procedures that regulate Scientific research, and providing a solution to the research problem. The scientific method is a way of finding answers to scientifically posed questions and at the same time a way of posing such questions formulated in the form of scientific problems. Thus, the scientific method is a way of obtaining new information to solve scientific problems.

History as a subject and a science is based on historical methodology. If in many other scientific disciplines there are two main methods of cognition, namely observation and experiment, then only the first method is available for history. Even despite the fact that every true scientist tries to minimize the impact on the object of observation, he still interprets what he sees in his own way. Depending on the methodological approaches used by scientists, the world receives different interpretations of the same event, various teachings, schools, and so on.

The use of scientific methods of cognition distinguishes historical science in such areas as historical memory, historical consciousness and historical knowledge, of course, provided that the use of these methods is correct.

LIST OF SOURCES USED

Barg M.A. Categories and methods of historical science. - M., 1984

Bocharov A.V. The main methods of historical research: Tutorial. - Tomsk: Tomsk State University, 2006. 190 p.

Grushin B.A. Essays on the logic of historical research.-M., 1961

Ivanov V.V. Methodology of historical science. - M., 1985

Bocharov A.V. Basic Methods of Historical Research: Textbook. - Tomsk: Tomsk State University, 2006. 190 p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are several forms of this research:

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

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

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

Methods of historical science

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.Methodology of history: main approaches (theories)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The civilized approach has a number of strengths:

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

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

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

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

5) the civilizational approach assigns a proper role in the historical process to the human spiritual, moral and intellectual factors. In this approach importance to characterize and evaluate civilization have religion, culture, mentality.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The purpose of the lesson is mastering the principles of historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological methods of historical research.

Questions:

1. Idiographic method. Description and summary.

2. Historical and genetic method.

3. Historical and comparative method.

4. Historical-typological method. Typology as forecasting.

When studying this topic, it is recommended to pay attention first of all to the works of I.D. Kovalchenko, K.V. Tail, M.F. Rumyantseva, Antoine Pro, John Tosh, revealing its current state to a sufficient extent. Other works can be studied depending on the availability of time and if this work directly relates to the topic of the student's scientific searches.

Under the "historical", "history" in scientific knowledge in a broad sense is understood everything that in the diversity of objective social and natural reality is in a state of change and development. The principle of historicism and the historical method have a common scientific value. They apply equally to biology, geology or astronomy as well as to the study of the history of human society. This method allows you to know reality through the study of its history, which distinguishes this method from the logical one, when the essence of the phenomenon is revealed by analyzing its given state.

Under the methods of historical research everyone understands common methods the study of historical reality, i.e., methods related to historical science as a whole, used in all areas of historical research. These are special scientific methods. On the one hand, they are based on the general philosophical method, and on one or another set of general scientific methods, and on the other hand, they serve as the basis for specific problematic methods, that is, methods used in the study of certain specific historical phenomena in the light of certain other research tasks. Their difference lies in the fact that they must be applicable to the study of the past according to the remnants that remain of it.

The concept of "ideographic method", introduced by representatives of the German neo-Kantian philosophy of history, presupposes not only the need to describe the phenomena under study, but also reduces to it the functions of historical knowledge in general. In fact, description, although an important step in this knowledge, is not a universal method. This is just one of the procedures of the historian's thinking. What are the role, limits of application and cognitive possibilities of the descriptive-narrative method?

The descriptive method is connected with the nature of social phenomena, their features, their qualitative originality. These properties cannot be neglected; no method of cognition can ignore them.

From this it follows that cognition in any case begins with a description, a characteristic of a phenomenon, and the structure of the description is ultimately determined by the nature of the phenomenon under study. It is quite obvious that such a specific, individually unique character of the object of historical knowledge requires appropriate linguistic means of expression.

The only language suitable for this purpose is the living Speaking as part of literary language modern historian era, scientific historical concepts, source terms. Only a natural language, and not a formalized way of presenting the results of knowledge makes them accessible to the general reader, which is important in connection with the problem of the formation of historical consciousness.

Essential-meaningful analysis is impossible without methodology; it also underlies the description of the course of events. In this sense, the description and analysis of the essence of phenomena are independent, but interconnected, interdependent stages of cognition. Description is not a random enumeration of information about the depicted, but a coherent presentation that has its own logic and meaning. The logic of the image can to some extent express the true essence of what is depicted, but in any case, the picture of the course of events depends on the methodological ideas and principles that the author uses.

In a truly scientific historical study, the formulation of its goal is based on the position, including methodological, of its author, although the study itself is carried out in different ways: in some cases, it has a pronounced tendency, in others, the desire for a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of what is depicted. However, in the overall picture of events, the specific weight of what is a description always prevails over generalization, conclusions regarding the essence of the subject of the description.

Historical reality is characterized near common features, and therefore it is possible to single out the main methods of historical research. According to the academician I.D. Kovalchenko The main general historical methods of scientific research include: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological and historical-systemic. When using one or another general historical method, other general scientific methods are also used (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, description and measurement, explanation, etc.), which act as specific cognitive means necessary to implement the approaches and principles underlying basis of the leading method. The rules and procedures necessary for conducting research (research methodology) are also developed, and certain tools and tools are used (research technique).

Descriptive method - historical genetic method. The historical-genetic method is one of the most common in historical research. It consists in the consistent discovery of the properties, functions and changes of the studied reality in the process of its historical movement, which makes it possible to get as close as possible to recreating the real history of the object. Cognition goes (should go) sequentially from the individual to the particular, and then to the general and universal. By its logical nature, the historical-genetic method is analytical and inductive, and by the form of expressing information about the reality under study, it is descriptive. Of course, this does not exclude the use (sometimes even wide) of quantitative indicators. But the latter act as an element of describing the properties of an object, and not as a basis for revealing its qualitative nature and constructing its essential-content and formal-quantitative model.

The historical-genetic method makes it possible to show causal relationships and patterns of historical development in their immediacy, and historical events and personalities to characterize in their individuality and imagery. When using this method, the most pronounced individual characteristics researcher. To the extent that the latter reflect a social need, they have a positive effect on the research process.

Thus, the historical-genetic method is the most universal, flexible and accessible method of historical research. At the same time, it is also inherent in its limitations, which can lead to certain costs in its absolutization.

The historical-genetic method is aimed primarily at the analysis of development. Therefore, with insufficient attention to statics, i.e. to fixing a certain temporal given of historical phenomena and processes, there may be a danger relativism.

Historical comparative method has also long been used in historical research. In general, comparison is an important and, perhaps, the most widespread method of scientific knowledge. In fact, no scientific research can do without comparison. The logical basis of the historical-comparative method in the case when the similarity of entities is established is analogy.

Analogy is a general scientific method of cognition, which consists in the fact that on the basis of similarity - some features of the compared objects, a conclusion is made about the similarity of other features. . It is clear that in this case the range of known features of the object (phenomenon) with which the comparison is made should be wider than that of the object under study.

Historical comparative method - critical method. The comparative method and verification of sources is the basis of the historical "craft", starting with the studies of positivist historians. External criticism allows, with the help of auxiliary disciplines, to establish the authenticity of the source. Internal criticism is based on the search for internal contradictions in the document itself. Mark Block considered the most reliable sources to be unintentional, unwitting evidence that was not intended to inform us. He himself called them "indications that the past unintentionally drops along its path." They can be private correspondence, a purely personal diary, company accounts, marriage records, inheritance declarations, as well as various items.

In general, any text is encoded by a representation system that is closely related to the language in which it is written. The report of an official of any era will reflect what he expects to see and what he is able to perceive: he will pass by what does not fit into his scheme of ideas.

That is why a critical approach to any information is the basis professional activity historian. A critical attitude requires intellectual effort. As S. Segnobos wrote: “Criticism is contrary to the normal structure of the human mind; man's spontaneous inclination is to believe what is said. It is quite natural to take on faith any statement, especially written; all the more easily if it is expressed in numbers, and even more easily if it comes from official authorities... Therefore, to apply criticism means to choose a way of thinking that is contrary to spontaneous thinking, to take a position that is unnatural.... This cannot be achieved without effort. The spontaneous movements of a person who has fallen into the water are all that is needed in order to drown. While learning to swim, it means to slow down your spontaneous movements, which are unnatural.

In general, the historical-comparative method has a wide range of knowledge. Firstly, it allows revealing the essence of the studied phenomena in those cases when it is not obvious, on the basis of the available facts; to identify the general and repetitive, necessary and natural, on the one hand, and qualitatively different, on the other. Thus, the gaps are filled, and the study is brought to a complete form. Secondly, the historical-comparative method makes it possible to go beyond the studied phenomena and, on the basis of analogies, to come to broad historical parallels. Thirdly, it allows the application of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method.

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

Revealing the significance of the features on the basis of which a historical-comparative analysis should be carried out, as well as the typology and stages of the compared phenomena most often requires special research efforts and the use of other general historical methods, primarily historical-typological and historical-systemic. In combination with these methods, the historical-comparative method is a powerful tool in historical research.

But this method, of course, has a certain range of the most effective action. This is, first of all, the study of socio-historical development in a wide spatial and temporal aspect, as well as those less broad phenomena and processes, the essence of which cannot be revealed through direct analysis due to their complexity, inconsistency and incompleteness, as well as gaps in specific historical data. .

The comparative method is used also as a means of developing and verifying hypotheses. On its basis, retro-alternativism is possible. History as a retro-telling suggests the ability to move in time in two directions: from the present and its problems (and at the same time the experience accumulated by this time) to the past, and from the beginning of an event to its finale. This brings to the search for causality in history an element of stability and strength that should not be underestimated: the final point is given, and in his work the historian proceeds from it. This does not eliminate the risk of delusional constructions, but at least it is minimized.

The history of the event is actually a social experiment that has taken place. It can be observed by circumstantial evidence, hypotheses can be built, tested. The historian may offer all sorts of interpretations of the French Revolution, but in any case, all his explanations have a common invariant to which they must be reduced: the revolution itself. So the flight of fancy has to be restrained. In this case, the comparative method is used as a means of developing and verifying hypotheses. Otherwise, this technique is called retroalternativism. To imagine a different development of history is the only way to find the causes of real history.

Raymond Aron urged to rationally weigh the possible causes of certain events by comparing what was possible: “If I say that the decision Bismarck caused the War of 1866… I mean, without the chancellor’s decision, the war would not have started (or at least wouldn’t have started at that moment)… actual causality is revealed only by comparison with what was in the possibility. Any historian, in order to explain what was, asks the question of what could have been.

Theory serves only to clothe in a logical form this spontaneous device, which is used by every ordinary person. If we are looking for the cause of a phenomenon, then we are not limited to simple addition or comparison of antecedents. We try to weigh the own impact of each of them. To carry out such a gradation, we take one of these antecedents, mentally consider it non-existent or modified, and try to reconstruct or imagine what would happen in this case. If you have to admit that the phenomenon under study would be different in the absence of this factor (or if it were not so), we conclude that this antecedent is one of the causes of some part of the phenomenon-effect, namely that part of it. parts in which we had to assume changes.

Thus, logical research includes the following operations:

1) dismemberment of the phenomenon-consequence;

2) establishing a gradation of antecedents and highlighting the antecedent whose influence we have to evaluate;

3) constructing an unreal course of events;

4) comparison between speculative and real events.

Suppose for a moment ... that our general knowledge of a sociological nature allows us to create unreal constructions. But what will be their status? Weber replies: in this case we will talk about objective possibilities, or, in other words, about the development of events in accordance with the patterns known to us, but only probable.

This analysis in addition to the event history, it applies to everything else. The actual causality is revealed only by comparison with what was in the possibility. If, for example, you are confronted with the question of the causes of the French Revolution, and if we want to weigh the importance that the economic factors had respectively (the crisis of the French economy at the end of the 18th century, the poor harvest of 1788), social factors(rise of the bourgeoisie, noble reaction), political factors (financial crisis of the monarchy, resignation Turgot), etc., there can be no other solution but to consider all these different causes one by one, to suppose that they could be different, and to try to imagine the course of events that might follow in this case. As he says M. Weber , to "untangle real causal relationships, we create unreal ones." Such an “imaginary experience” is the only way for the historian not only to identify the causes, but also to unravel, weigh them, as M. Weber and R. Aron put it, that is, to establish their hierarchy.

The historical-comparative method is inherent in a certain limitation, and one should also bear in mind the difficulties of its application. Not all phenomena can be compared. Through it, first of all, the root essence of reality in all its diversity is known, and not its specific specificity. It is difficult to apply the historical-comparative method in studying the dynamics of social processes. The formal application of the historical-comparative method is fraught with erroneous conclusions and observations.

Historical-typological method, like all other methods, has its own objective basis. It consists in the fact that in socio-historical development, on the one hand, they differ, and on the other hand, the individual, particular, general and universal are closely interconnected. Therefore, an important task in the knowledge of socio-historical phenomena, the disclosure of their essence, is to identify the one that was inherent in the diversity of certain combinations of the individual (single).

Social life in all its manifestations is a constant dynamic process. It is not a simple sequential course of events, but a change of some qualitative states by others, it has its own dissimilar stages. The allocation of these stages is also an important task in the knowledge of socio-historical development.

A layman is right when he recognizes a historical text by the presence of dates in it.

The first feature of time, in which, in general, there is nothing surprising: the time of history is the time of various social groups: societies, states, civilizations. This is the time that serves as a guide for all members of a group. War time always drags on for a very long time, revolutionary time was a time that flew by very quickly. The fluctuations of historical time are collective. Therefore, they can be objectified.

The task of the historian is to determine the direction of movement. The rejection of the teleological point of view in modern historiography does not allow the historian to admit the existence of a clearly directed time, as it appears to contemporaries. The processes under investigation themselves, in their course, communicate a certain topology to time. The forecast is possible not in the form of an apocalyptic prophecy, but a forecast directed from the past to the future, based on a diagnosis based on the past, in order to possible development events and assess the degree of its probability.

R. Koselleck writes about this: “While the prophecy goes beyond the horizon of calculated experience, the forecast, as you know, is itself interspersed in the political situation. And to such an extent that making a forecast in itself means changing the situation. Forecasting is thus a conscious factor in political action, it is made in relation to events by discovering their novelty. So in some unpredictably predictable way, time is always pushed beyond the forecast.”

The first step in the work of a historian is the compilation of a chronology. The second step is periodization. The historian cuts history into periods, replaces the elusive continuity of time with some signifying structure. The relations of discontinuity and continuity are revealed: continuity takes place within periods, discontinuity - between periods.

Periodization means, therefore, to identify discontinuities, discontinuities, to indicate what exactly is changing, to date these changes and give them a preliminary definition. Periodization deals with the identification of continuity and its violations. It opens the way for interpretation. It makes history, if not quite understandable, then at least already conceivable.

The historian does not reconstruct time in its entirety for each new study: he takes the time that other historians have already worked on, the periodization of which is available. Since the question being asked acquires legitimacy only as a result of its inclusion in the research field, the historian cannot abstract from previous periodizations: after all, they constitute the language of the profession.

Typology as a method of scientific knowledge has as its goal the division (ordering) of a set of objects or phenomena into qualitatively defined types (classes based on their inherent common essential features. The focus on identifying essentially homogeneous in spatial or temporal aspects of sets of objects and phenomena distinguishes typology (or typification) from classification and grouping , in a broad sense, in which the task of identifying the belonging of an object as an integrity to one or another qualitative certainty may not be set.The division here may be limited to grouping objects according to certain characteristics and in this regard act as a means of ordering and systematizing specific data on historical objects , phenomena and processes.Typologization, being a kind of classification in form, is a method of essential analysis.

These principles can be implemented most effectively only on the basis of a deductive approach. It consists in the fact that the corresponding types are distinguished on the basis of a theoretical essential-content analysis of the considered set of objects. The result of the analysis should be not only the identification of qualitatively different types, but also the identification of those specific features that characterize their qualitative certainty. This creates the possibility of assigning each individual object to a particular type.

All this dictates the need to use both a combined deductive-inductive and inductive approach in typology.

In cognitive terms, the most effective typification is one that allows not only to single out the corresponding types, but also to establish both the degree to which objects belong to these types and the measure of their similarity with other types. This requires special methods of multidimensional typology. Such methods have been developed, and there are already attempts to apply them in historical research.