Introduction

Interest in history is a natural interest. People have long sought to know their past, looking for some meaning in it, were fond of antiquity and collected antiquities, wrote and talked about the past. History leaves few people indifferent - this is a fact.

It is not difficult to answer the question why history so powerfully attracts a person to itself. We read from the famous French historian Mark Blok: “Ignorance of the past inevitably leads to a misunderstanding of the present.” Perhaps most people would agree with these words. And indeed, as L.N. Gumilyov, “everything that exists is the past, since any accomplishment immediately becomes the past” . And this precisely means that by studying the past as the only reality accessible to us, we thereby study and understand the present. That is why it is often said that history is the true teacher of life.

For a person, understanding the present is not only an understanding of the natural and social reality surrounding him, but, first of all, comprehension of himself and his place in the world, awareness of his specifically human essence, his goals and objectives, basic existential values ​​and attitudes, in a word , everything that allows a person not only to fit into a certain socio-cultural context, but also to actively participate in its formation, to be a subject and a creator. Therefore, it should be borne in mind that the problem of history is also of interest to us from a purely philosophical point of view.

In close connection with philosophy is the worldview of a person, therefore, it is also impossible to ignore the role of historical knowledge in its formation. According to B.L. Gubman, "the status of history as a worldview category is determined by the fact that outside of it a person cannot realize his involvement with his people and humanity as a whole" . From this it is clear that history acts as a guarantor of the self-preservation of local cultures and civilizations in all their inimitable originality and uniqueness, without losing spiritual unity with the rest of humanity. Simply put, history as a common destiny makes a people a people, and not a faceless agglomeration of two-legged creatures. Finally, one should not lose sight of the fact that history teaches patriotism, thus fulfilling an educational function - a requirement that is as relevant today as possible.

It is clear that when studying at a university, the role of history in the course of the educational and upbringing process increases many times over. Students are faced with the task of competent, methodically correct and systematic acquisition of historical knowledge, on the basis of which the formation of historical consciousness takes place. However, as practice shows, not all students have the experience and skills of independent work, understand the specifics of historical science, are able to take notes and prepare for seminars. In order to help them in this, this manual has been written.

History as a science

The traditional definition of history says that history is a science that studies the past of human society in its entirety and concreteness in order to understand the present and future prospects. What is the main thing here? Of course, history is a science. This emphasis is not entirely accidental. The point is that the concept of history throughout human development changed repeatedly. The "Father of History" is considered to have lived in the 5th century. BC. Ancient Greek writer Herodotus. The word "history" itself comes from the Greek historia, which means - a story about the past, a story about what happened. Since the main task for ancient historians was to convey to their contemporaries (and descendants) news about certain events that happened in the past, they strove to make their works vivid, imaginative, memorable and often embellished facts, gave free rein to fantasy, interfered with truth and fiction, invented phrases and whole speeches with which they endowed their heroes. Actions and events were most often explained by the will of the gods. Naturally, such history was not a science.

It did not become a science even later, in the Middle Ages. And how could it become a science, if “the most common and popular genre of literary work in this era is the lives of the saints, the most typical example of architecture is the cathedral, in painting the icon prevails, in sculpture - the characters of scripture”? . However, much has changed, and changed seriously. In antiquity, they did not think about the exact meaning of history and did not believe in the idea of ​​progressive development. Hesiod in the epic poem “Works and Days” expressed the theory of the historical regression of mankind from the happy Golden Age to the dark Iron Age, Aristotle wrote about the endless cyclicity of existence, and ordinary Greeks relied on the role of blind chance, fate, fate in everything. It can be said that antiquity lived, as it were, "outside of history." The Bible in this regard has made a revolutionary coup, because. expressed a new understanding of history - progressively straightforward. History was filled with meaning and acquired the features of universalism, because all historical events were now viewed through the prism of the Christian faith. It should be added that during the Middle Ages there was no complete oblivion of the ancient tradition, which, in the end, predetermined the return of historical thought to the ideas of humanism during the Renaissance.

A crisis historical knowledge began during the Age of Enlightenment. The 18th century was the heyday of the natural sciences, for which historians were completely unprepared; they are completely confused in trying to explain the dizzying rise of scientific knowledge. In this regard, the opinion was even expressed about the complete bankruptcy of "the historical method, which, despairing of the possibility of finding a genuine explanation, ascribes very far-reaching consequences to the most banal causes." And since the Age of Enlightenment is a time of tough and cruel ideological struggle between supporters of the old system and apologists for the revolutionary restructuring of society on new principles, history has degenerated into mere propaganda.

The crisis lasted almost until the end of the century, and only at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries did the situation begin to change. By the way, one should not think that this crisis hit only one story. No, the time was generally difficult for all humanitarian disciplines, so it is not surprising that the way out of it was inspired, first of all, by changes in philosophical knowledge. And how could it be otherwise? Of course, it was philosophy, as the most crowned of all sciences, as a discipline that has the status of a metascience, that should have played the role of a locomotive, followed by other areas of the humanities, including history. And so it happened. The changes were so significant that R. J. Collingwood, in his (long-time classic) study The Idea of ​​History, called one of the parts (part III) “On the Threshold of scientific history". In his opinion, thanks to the works of Kant, Herder, Schelling, Fichte, Hegel, history came close to becoming a science in the exact sense of the word. The formation of history as a science was finally completed by the end of the 19th century.

So, what is historical science, what is its specificity? Before answering this question, we need to understand what science is in general and what is the difference between the natural sciences and the humanities. Science is understood as the sphere of human activity in which the development and theoretical systematization of objective knowledge about reality is carried out. Scientific knowledge must necessarily meet the criteria of consistency, verifiability and effectiveness. As V.A. Kanke, “it is important to understand that any science is multilevel. Information about the phenomena being studied, regardless of their nature, is given in feelings (perceptual level), thoughts (cognitive level), statements (linguistic level). It is here, at these levels, that the difference between the natural sciences and the humanities lies, and history belongs to the latter. The natural sciences study natural phenomena, and at the perceptual level, natural science deals with the senses that capture the state of affairs in the observed area. At the cognitive level, human mental activity operates with concepts, and the object of statements (i.e., at the linguistic level) are natural processes that are described by means of universal and singular statements using words denoting concepts. In the humanities, however, things are different. Instead of observable natural phenomena the scientist deals with the social actions of people, which at the perceptual level are melted into feelings (impressions, sensations, experiences, emotions, affects). At the cognitive level, they, actions, are comprehended through values. And at the linguistic level, the theory of these actions is presented through universal and singular statements, with the help of which certain human actions are either approved or rejected.

To understand the specifics of historical science, it is very important to always remember that understanding history is a creative and deeply individual process, so any good historian will definitely bring something of his own, purely personal, interpret history and its tasks in his own way, and in the course of his work focuses on certain details and principles of studying the past. That is why the wealth of historical science consists of the works of such different authors, such as Thucydides and Karamzin, Mathiez and Pavlov-Silvansky, Solovyov and Ten, Mommsen, Pokrovsky and many, many others. This can be illustrated at least by how history itself is understood by such different scientists as M. Blok, R.J. Collingwood and L.N. Gumilyov.

For example, a prominent representative of the so-called "Annals school" - the French historian Mark Blok says that history is the science of "people in time". As you can see, he puts human and temporal factors in the first place. The British neo-Hegelian philosopher and historian Robin George Collingwood understands history as a science that searches for evidence (“the actions of people committed in the past”) and their interpretation. And the creator of the theory of ethnogenesis, Lev Nikolaevich Gumilyov, never tires of reminding us of the extreme importance geographical factor in historical research.

Further consideration of the specifics of historical science is impossible without referring to the most general and specific methods of historical science, to which the next chapter is devoted.

Basic principles and methods of historical research

The methodology of historical science is quite diverse. “In translation from Greek, methodology means the path of knowledge, or a system of principles and methods for organizing and constructing theoretical and practical activities, as well as the doctrine of this system. Methodology is closely connected with the theoretical understanding of the subject, process and results of knowledge. However, methodology should be preceded by the most general principles and rules of historical knowledge and approaches to the study of history. They are the foundation without which any methodology would be meaningless.

The general principles of knowledge include the principles of objectivity and historicism. The principle of objectivity, in short, boils down to the impartiality of the researcher's view. A real scientist cannot afford to manipulate facts based on some momentary goals or his own ideological, political, personal, etc. likes and dislikes. To follow the ideal of truth is the lofty demand on which generations of scientists and scientific schools have always been brought up. Students who study history at an institute where it is not a specialized specialty are in this respect no different from some venerable academician who solves the most difficult problems of the genesis of feudalism or deciphers ancient manuscripts. In the previous section it was already shown that any historian inevitably brings into his studies personal beginning, i.e., an element of subjectivity. Nevertheless, it is necessary to strive to overcome the subjective view. These are the rules of elementary scientific ethics (whether this is possible is another question). The principle of historicism is that the study of the past should be carried out taking into account the specific historical situation and the interconnectedness and interdependence of the studied phenomena. Simply put, one cannot rip facts and events out of general context and consider them in isolation, without connection with the rest of the array of historical information.

Unfortunately, our recent past, and often the present, is full of egregious examples of scientific dishonesty and violation of both of the above principles. What is worth only one figure of Tsar Ivan the Terrible, cursed (in the literal sense of the word!) by many historians for "mass terror" and "despotism of power", although it is reliably known that during all the years of his reign, about the same number of people were destroyed as in contemporary France was slaughtered in one St. Bartholomew's night! But France is far from being the leader among European countries by the number of victims in this era. Nevertheless, the name of Ivan the Terrible has become a symbol of a cruel and inhuman ruler who oppresses his people, but the name of the no less cruel and criminal English King Henry VIII is not. We observe a similar picture in relation to both Russian revolutions - February and October, many myths have been created around the events of the Great Patriotic War, etc. Examples can be multiplied further, but they all testify to the vital relevance of the principles of objectivity and historicism in our day.

Approaches to the study of history are classified into subjectivist, objective-idealistic, formational and civilizational. Of these, the first three have already become the property of the past, and now the civilizational approach dominates in historical science, although until recently the formational division of social development was supported by many scientists. The dominance of the civilizational approach is associated with its advantages, since it is based on the recognition of the inherent value and uniqueness of all local human communities and their cultures, which excludes the Eurocentric understanding of history as a unidirectional linear progressive process. With this approach, each civilization should be studied based on the logic of its own development and according to its own criteria, and not from the point of view of civilizations of other types.

Regardless of the general principles, approach and methodology of research in the process of historical knowledge, two extremes should be avoided - voluntarism and fatalism. Voluntarism is understood as an excessive exaggeration of the role of the individual in history, so that the entire course of historical development appears as the result of exclusively the desires and arbitrariness of the subjective human will. History, therefore, appears to be a continuous chaos, devoid of any patterns. The other extreme is fatalism, i.e. the belief that absolutely everything is predetermined and rigidly determined by the inexorable objective laws of social development, so that conscious and purposeful human activity does not play any significant role in history. It must always be firmly remembered that real history there is a combination of both subjective and objective factors. To exaggerate the role of one of them is fundamentally wrong and unproductive.

Let us now consider briefly the main features of the most famous methods of historical research. Usually, three groups of such methods are distinguished: general scientific, which include the historical, logical and method of classification (systematization); special ones, which include synchronic, chronological, comparative-historical, retrospective, structural-systemic and periodization methods; methods of other sciences used in historical research, for example, the mathematical method, the method of social psychology, etc.

historical method is one of the most frequently used in modern historical science. As N.V. Efremenkov, he "involves the study and reproduction of events and phenomena of national or general history as a developing process with its characteristic common, special and individual features" . This method is directly based on the chronological and event-based approaches to the events under study and the principle of historicism. Historical phenomena are necessarily considered in the context of their era, inseparably from it. The historical process itself, taking into account its integrity, is divided into a number of interrelated stages. The latter is very important, because it allows you to trace the presence of causal relationships between events.

Boolean Method very often used along with historical, so both these methods usually complement each other. In most cases, it comes down to the analysis and disclosure of the role of elements in the study of certain historical phenomena. Functions, the meaning of individual facts or events are studied in all their specifics, which allows you to determine the essence of the phenomenon as a whole and ascend to the level of theoretical understanding of both specific historical details and general patterns. The essence of this method can be defined as filling the entire array of factual materials with the conceptual content, as a result of which the ascent from the individual and individual to the general and abstract is carried out.

It should be noted that the role of logic in scientific knowledge is generally great, but it increases especially strongly when constructing a scientific hypothesis or putting forward a theoretical position. It is the application of ideas, methods and apparatus of scientific logic that makes possible solution such issues as the consistency and completeness of the theory, the testability of the hypothesis, the correctness of the chosen classification, the rigor of definitions, etc.

Method of classification (systematization) is a special case of applying the logical operation of dividing the scope of a concept. Historical facts, events, based on any signs of similarity or difference between them, are grouped by the researcher into a certain system for permanent use. There can be several classifications, their number is determined by the needs scientific work. Each individual classification is based on only one criterion or attribute. A classification is called natural if it is built on the basis of signs that are essential for given facts or events. In such cases, it has a cognitive value and is usually called a typology. An artificial classification consists in systematizing facts or events according to signs that are insignificant for them, which, however, is a certain convenience for the researcher himself. It should be remembered that any classification is conditional, because. it is usually the result of a simplification of the phenomena under study.

Synchronous method is used to study the parallelism of events occurring at the same time but in different metas. This method allows you to determine the general and particular in the events and phenomena of the political, cultural and socio-economic spheres of society. When studying the history of Russia, the interrelation of the domestic political or economic situation in the country with global development trends is traced. This method was actively used by the outstanding Russian historian L.N. Gumilyov.

Chronological method allows you to study phenomena and events in their relationship, development and temporal sequence with the fixation of the changes occurring in them. It is especially useful when comparing historical chronicles, in which there is a close unity of subject matter with the chronology of presentation.

Problem-chronological method is one of the varieties of the chronological method. Its essence lies in the division of one large topic or problem into several private topics or problems, which are then studied in chronological order, which contributes not only to an in-depth and detailed study of individual elements of the historical process, but also to the understanding of their interconnectedness and interdependence with each other.

Periodization method (diachrony) based on the allocation in the history of society or some individual phenomenon public life certain chronological periods, distinguished by their specific features and characteristics. It is this specificity that is the main criterion for distinguishing periods, since it expresses the essential content of the studied phenomena or events. The criterion, as in the classification method, should be only one. The method of periodization is used to study the historical process as a whole, some of its individual parts, as well as specific events and phenomena.

Comparative historical method otherwise called the method of historical parallels, or the method of analogy. It consists in comparing two studied objects (facts, events), one of which is well known to science, and the other is not. In the course of comparison, the presence of certain features is established on the basis of fixing the similarity that exists in some other features. This method allows you to find commonalities between the studied facts and events, but in the course of its use, the differences between them must also be taken into account. At present, the analogy method is most often used in hypotheses, as a means of clarifying the problem and directing its solutions.

Retrospective method sometimes referred to as the method of historical modeling, since its essence is to create a mental model of some phenomenon of the past on the basis of a thorough study of the entire complex of materials at the disposal of the researcher. However, this method should be used with great caution: when creating a model, one should not neglect even the crumbs of the available information, but here lies the danger of a distorted model building - after all, fragmentary and partial information does not give one hundred percent confidence in the purity of the experiment. There is always a possibility that some fact or event has not been given due importance, or, conversely, their role has been excessively exaggerated. Finally, there is still the problem of the reliability of the historical sources themselves, which usually bear the stamp of bias and subjectivity.

System-structural method based on the study of society complex system, in turn, consisting of a number of subsystems that are in close interaction with each other. With the system-structural method, the researcher's attention is drawn first of all to the connections between the elements of the whole. Since subsystems are spheres of public life (economic, social, political and cultural), then all the diverse connections between them are studied, respectively. This method requires an interdisciplinary approach to historical research, but it also allows you to thoroughly study the most diverse aspects of the life of the past.

quantitative method used relatively recently. It is associated with the mathematical processing of digital data and quantitative characteristics of the phenomena and processes under study, which results in obtaining qualitatively new, in-depth information about the object of study.

Of course, there are other methods of historical research. They are usually based on an interdisciplinary approach to the process of historical knowledge. As an example, one can mention method of concrete social research, in which the principles of sociology are actively used, or method of social psychology, built taking into account psychological factors, etc. However, in summarizing the brief review of historical methodology, two points should be noted: first, it is important to remember that in practical work usually not one, but a combination of two or more methods is used; secondly, one should be very careful in choosing a method in each specific case, because an incorrectly chosen technique can only give the appropriate results.

Literature work

In the vast majority of cases, independent work of students is somehow connected with scientific literature, so the importance of skillful handling of printed materials is beyond doubt. This is all the more relevant, because. Sociological surveys and studies of our days clearly show that the interest in reading among young people is declining. It is clear that there are many reasons for this - the computerization of our lives, the prevalence of electronic media, the limit of free time, etc., but all this does not negate the main thing, namely: the need to work with literature, and one must be able to work with literature.

Since the amount of published information is already quite large, and every year it increases more and more, it is useful to pay attention to the reading process itself. A student has to read a lot, so great importance should be given to fast, high-speed reading. A fairly significant amount of special and popular science literature is devoted to this issue, and it will not be difficult to purchase any methodological manual in a bookstore. However, I would like to make a few fundamental remarks here.

First, you need to read a lot. Reading should become a habit. Only those who read a lot will learn to read correctly. It is very useful to set yourself a constant norm for reading, for example, regular familiarization with periodicals (newspapers, magazines) and up to 100 pages of book text per day - this is not counting fiction, which is also necessary to read, if only to broaden one's horizons and raise one's general cultural level.

Secondly, you need to read carefully and try to understand what you read in the process of reading. To do this, you need to memorize the thoughts and ideas of the author, and not individual words, phrases or facts. It does not hurt to take notes for memory as you read.

Finally, thirdly, you should read with a quick vertical movement of the eyes - from top to bottom. At the same time, one should strive, as it were, to “photograph” the entire page at once and instantly bring into memory the main meaning of what was read. On average, this entire operation should take 30 seconds per page. With persistent and measured training, such a result is quite achievable.

Exam preparation requires a special reading technique. The amount of material that a student needs to repeat or learn by a certain date is usually quite large - most often it is a textbook or lecture notes. AT this case should be read three times. The first time is a quick and introductory read. The second time you should read very slowly, carefully, thoughtfully, trying to remember and understand what you read. After that, you need to take a break and get distracted by doing other things. And just before the exam, read everything again quickly and fluently, restoring in memory what was forgotten.

Now with regard to work with educational literature. Undoubtedly, the most popular and commonly used books are university history textbooks. Here it should be noted right away that it is best to use them on the principle of "the less, the better." This is in no way connected with any negative or biased attitude towards certain authors and their textbooks. On the contrary, in general, the majority of institute history textbooks (and there are quite a few of them) are written by quite competent specialists and at a fairly high level. professional level. Moreover, the textbook is indispensable in preparing for an exam or a test, here you simply cannot do without it. But in the process of analyzing the issues of seminars or when students write essays or reports, the role of the textbook should be minimized. Textbooks, for all their differences in author's approaches and style, cover the same set of facts and events, present the same material. Students come to the institute already having experience of studying history at school and a coherent picture of the historical past, so they are more or less familiar with the bulk of historical information provided by textbooks. There is no need to duplicate what has already been learned before.

It is clear that the study of history, in principle, is carried out with the aim of developing a historical self-awareness of the personality, and the school is no exception here. But the study of history at a university is a qualitatively new, higher stage in this process, which involves the acquisition by a young person of the skills and ability to comprehensively theoretically comprehend both individual historical facts and events, and the entire historical development as a whole. Students themselves must be able to select and analyze historical material, master the methodology of its processing and interpretation - in a word, see history in their own way, and this view must be strictly scientific.

How to achieve this? Of course, through a detailed and detailed study of the most important, controversial or little-known pages of the domestic past. And for this you need to read special research literature: books, articles, monographs written by professionals in their field, the best scientists of the past and present, who have their own point of view and are able to convincingly state and argue it. Only by delving into the author's train of thought, noticing interesting things, confronting opposing approaches, opinions and concepts with each other, recognizing the latest achievements of historical science, can one learn to think historically independently. In a word, you need to focus on the best and highest that has been created by inquisitive human thought. In textbooks, we meet only the necessary, verified, well-established, intended for memorization and assimilation, therefore textbooks are best used as reference material, where you can find out what, who, where and when.

Of course, each teacher recommends to students what they need to read in without fail, and this is usually sufficient. However, it is desirable that students themselves take the initiative and look for the materials they need for work on their own, since each library has catalogs - alphabetical and thematic. Yes, and in any scientific monograph, a list of the literature used by the author is necessarily placed, referring to which you can easily navigate in search of the articles and books you need on the topic. Independent selection of literature by students can only be welcomed, because the skills acquired in this case will be useful not only in the study of history, but in general in any scientific search.

Give a complete overview of historical literature and the features of its classification within the framework of this methodological manual- the task is obviously impossible. Let's try to do it at least in general terms. We should start with specialized historical journals, the role and importance of which is difficult to overestimate, since journals are unparalleled in terms of efficiency in presenting the latest scientific information, diversity of materials, variety of content and expressed points of view. Historical journals that can be recommended to students are located both in the city libraries and in the library of our institute. These are, first of all, National History and Questions of History, which regularly publish research by leading Russian and foreign experts on a variety of problems in the history of our country. To a greater extent, this applies to the journal “Otechestvennaya istoriya”, whose specialization is already visible from the name, although very interesting and useful works can be found in Questions of History. Abundance of historical research, articles, reviews, reviews, etc. There are so many materials that, perhaps, any student will be able to find texts of interest to him there. And it should only be recalled that the last annual issue of any journal helps to understand this sea of ​​​​information, in which there is necessarily a summary of everything printed during the year in the form of listing the names of authors and the titles of their articles, arranged in thematic order, indicating the number of the journal and pages, where this article printed.

"Domestic History" and "Questions of History" are not the only periodicals covering the history of Russia. From time to time something interesting appears on the pages of Novy Mir, Nashe Sovremennik, Moskva, Zvezda. I would especially like to single out the Rodina magazine, which regularly publishes thematic issues entirely devoted to individual historical issues and problems. So, for example, No. 12 for 1995 is devoted entirely to publishing materials about the unknown pages of the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940, and in No. 6-7 for 1992 you can find out a lot of interesting things about Napoleon's invasion of Russia. By the way, a complete set of "Motherland" for several years is stored in the office humanities OIATE.

However, there is no doubt that books are the main source of information, and it is work with them that is particularly effective. Scientific literature on history in terms of content, chronology and issues is traditionally divided into large collective works of a generalizing nature, comprehensive studies of individual historical events and collective and individual monographs. In addition, books differ in their scientific level, and in the quantity and quality of the information contained in them, and in the research methodology, and in the system of evidence, which means that the approach to them should be differentiated. Some books are enough to skim through, in others - to get acquainted with the introduction and conclusions of the author, somewhere you need to pay attention to the literature used, and somewhere - to study individual chapters, others deserve close and thoughtful reading, etc. It is very useful in the process of studying literature to make extracts from it. They may concern both statistical and factual material, and the conceptual views of the author or his working methodology, but in any case they greatly help in the work. Needless to say, any literature studied by students must necessarily have the status of scientific. In no case should one stoop to the writings of some G.V. Nosovsky and A.T. Fomenko with their "New Chronology" or noisy scandalous opuses like "Icebreaker" and "Day-M" by Mr. Rezun-Suvorov and a number of other lesser-known, but equally ambitious personalities with their "discoveries". Unfortunately, in recent times too many irresponsible writers have divorced, trying to revise both Russian and (more broadly) world history. This is done, as a rule, by non-specialist amateurs exclusively for commercial or ideological purposes (the latter, however, is now less common). There is no smell of science in their "creations", which means that the truth is there - for a penny. You can trust only that literature that has passed the crucible of strict scientific criticism.

A few more words about books that can be recommended to students to help them for independent work. It is very useful to read the classics of historical thought, such as N.M. Karamzin, S.M. Solovyov and V.O. Klyuchevsky. Karamzin's name is connected, of course, primarily with his "History of the Russian State" in 12 volumes, which, among other things, is also an outstanding literary work, whose style well conveys the flavor of the era when history as a science was in its infancy. Karamzin can be read all at once, in its entirety, but it can also be read selectively, selecting individual chapters for specific seminars. The main work of S.M. Solovyov is a 29-volume "History of Russia from ancient times", which even today impresses with its volume and a huge amount of carefully collected factual material. Of course, reading all these volumes is a rather difficult task, but by now, extracts from them and abridged versions of the History have been published (and more than once) in large editions, acquaintance with which would be useful for students studying the past of our country. For example, released in 1989 by publishers

The positivists believed that scientific methods were the same for the natural and human sciences. The neo-Kantians opposed the method of history to the method of the natural sciences. In fact, everything is more complicated: there are general scientific methods used in all sciences, and there are specific methods of a particular science or complex of sciences. Most thoroughly in the domestic historical literature I. Kovalchenko spoke about the application of general scientific methods in his book on the methods of historical research. We will not characterize these methods in detail from a philosophical point of view, but only show the specifics of their application in historical science.

Logical and historical method. In history, synchrony is used - the study of an object in space as a system, their structure and functions (logical method) and the study of objects in time - diachrony (historical method). Both methods can act in pure form and in unity. As a result, we study the subject in space and time. The logical method is provided by a systematic approach and structural and functional analysis.

The historical method implements the principle of historicism, which was discussed above. The development process is studied through the analysis of the state of the object in different time slices. First an analysis of structure and function, then a historical analysis. You can't break these two methods.

I. Kovalchenko gives an example. If we use only the historical method, we can conclude that the agriculture of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was dominated by semi-serf relations. But if we add a logical analysis - system-structural - it turns out that bourgeois relations dominated.

Ascent from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract to the concrete. I. Kovalchenko considers this method to be the most important and decisive. The concrete is the object of knowledge in all its richness and diversity of its inherent features. Abstraction is a mental distraction from some features and properties of the concrete, while it should reflect the essential aspects of reality.

The ascent from the concrete to the abstract is carried out in three ways. Through abstraction (certain properties are considered in isolation from other properties of the object, or a set of features of the object is distinguished and it is possible to build essential-content and formal-quantitative models).

The second technique is abstraction by means of identifying the non-identical: the object is assigned such states and characteristics that it does not possess. It is used for various kinds of classifications and typology.

The third technique is idealization - an object is formed with certain ideal properties. They are inherent in the object, but not sufficiently expressed. This makes it possible to carry out deductive-integral modeling. Abstraction helps to better understand the essence of the object.

But in order to understand the essence of concrete phenomena, the second stage is necessary - the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. Specific theoretical knowledge appears in the form of scientific concepts, laws, theories. The merit of developing such a method belongs to K. Marx ("Capital"). This method is complicated and, according to I. Kovalchenko, is not widely used.

System approach and system analysis. System - as already noted, an integral set of elements of reality, the interaction of which leads to the emergence of new integrative qualities that are not inherent in its constituent elements. Each system has a structure, structure and functions. System components -- subsystems and elements. Social systems have a complex structure, which the historian should study. A systematic approach helps to understand the laws of the functioning of social systems. The leading method is structural-functional analysis.

Foreign science has accumulated extensive experience in the application of system analysis in history. Domestic researchers note the following shortcomings in the application of new methods. The interaction of the system with the environment is often ignored. The basis of all social structures are subconscious-mental structures with high stability; as a result, the structure turns out to be unchanged. Finally, the hierarchy of structures is denied, and society turns out to be an unordered set of closed and unchanging structures. The inclination towards synchronous study in statics often leads to the rejection of dynamic diachronic analysis.

Induction - deduction. Induction is a study from the singular to the general. Deduction - from the general to the particular, the singular. The historian investigates the facts and arrives at a generalized concept and, conversely, applies the concepts known to him to explain the facts. Every fact has elements in common. At first it is merged with a single fact, then it stands out as such. F. Bacon considered induction to be the main method, since deductive reasoning is often erroneous. Historians in the 19th century used mainly the inductive method. Some are still suspicious of the deductive method. D. Elton believes that the use of theories not from the empirical material of sources can be detrimental to science. However, this extreme view is not shared by most historians. To penetrate into the essence of phenomena, it is necessary to use concepts and theories, including those from related sciences. Induction and deduction are organically linked and complement each other.

Analysis and synthesis. Also widely used by historians. Analysis is the isolation of individual aspects of an object, the decomposition of the whole into separate elements. The historian cannot cover as a whole the period or object of study he is studying. Having studied individual aspects, factors, the historian must combine the elements of knowledge obtained about individual aspects of historical reality, and the concepts obtained in the course of the analysis are combined into a single whole. Moreover, the synthesis in history is not a simple mechanical addition of individual elements, it gives a qualitative leap in understanding the object of study.

The idea of ​​"historical synthesis" was developed by A. Burr. He created the "Journal of Historical Synthesis" at the beginning of the 20th century and the International Center for Synthesis, which brought together historians, sociologists and representatives of natural and mathematical sciences from a number of countries. He advocated a cultural-historical synthesis, for the fusion of history and sociology, the use of the achievements of psychology and anthropology. Approximately a hundred monographs by various historians were published in the series “The Evolution of Mankind. Collective Synthesis. The focus is on social and mental life. But priority is given to psychology. A. Burr, in fact, prepared the emergence of the "Annals School", but the latter, after the Second World War, went further than him in search of a synthesis.

Each philosophical trend offered its own basis for synthesis, but so far the factors were shuffled in a positivist spirit. Recently, the idea of ​​a synthesis based on culture in the postmodern sense has emerged. We should wait for specific historical works in this direction.

One thing is clear, analysis and synthesis are inextricably linked. Successes in analysis will not be significant if they are not in synthesis. Synthesis will give a new impetus to analysis, and that, in turn, will lead to a new synthesis. There are successes in achieving a synthesis, but they are of a partial and short-term nature, sometimes material, sometimes ideal factors are put forward as determining ones, but there is no unity among historians. The larger the subject of study, the more difficult it is to obtain a synthesis.

Modeling. This is the most common form of scientific activity. All sciences use models to obtain information about the phenomenon being modeled, to test hypotheses, and to develop a theory. This technique is also used by historians. Modeling of a historical phenomenon is carried out by means of logical design - mental models of a content-functional plan are created. Modeling is associated with some simplification, idealization and abstraction. It allows you to check the representativeness of information sources, the reliability of facts, test hypotheses and theories. This method is used at all stages of the study. An example of a study of the community can be given. When creating its model, data from sociology, law, psychology are used, mentality is taken into account. This already means the application of an interdisciplinary approach. At the same time, it must be remembered that it is impossible to simply transfer a model from another discipline, it must be reconstructed taking into account conceptual constructions.

Exists math modeling. Methods of nonlinear dynamics are used, mathematical theory chaos, catastrophe theory. The construction of statistical models will be discussed in the section on mathematical methods in history.

Intuition. It is well known that scientists often use intuition when solving scientific problems. This unexpected solution is then tested scientifically. In history back in late XIX century V. Dilthey, referring history to the sciences of the spirit, considered the historian's intuition as the main method of understanding historical events. But this point of view was not shared by many historians, since it destroyed history as a science, preaching extreme subjectivism. What kind of truth could one talk about, relying only on the intuition of historians very different in erudition and abilities. Objective research methods were needed.

But this does not mean that intuition does not play a serious role in scientific research. For a historian, it is based on a deep knowledge of his subject, broad erudition, and the ability to timely apply this or that method. Without knowledge, no intuition will “work”. But, of course, talent is needed for “insight” to come. This speeds up the work of the historian, helps to create outstanding works.

In the scientific literature, the concept of methodology is used to denote, in some cases, a set of techniques, methods and other cognitive means used in science, and, in others, as a special doctrine of the principles, methods, methods and means of scientific knowledge: 1) Methodology - it is a doctrine of structure, logical organization, methods and means of activity. 2) The methodology of science is the doctrine of the principles, methods and forms of building scientific knowledge. 3) The methodology of history is a variety of systems of methods that are used in the process of historical research in accordance with the specifics of various historical scientific schools. 4) The methodology of history is a special scientific discipline that has been formed within the framework of historical science with the aim of theoretically ensuring the effectiveness of historical research conducted in it.

The concept of the methodology of historical research is close to the concept of the paradigm of historical research. In the modern methodology of science, the concept of a paradigm is used to refer to a system of prescriptions and rules for cognitive activity, or models of scientific research. Paradigms are understood as scientific achievements recognized by all, which for a certain time provide the scientific community with a model for posing problems and solving them. The paradigms of historical research, which are followed in scientific activities by certain scientific communities of historians, set the way of seeing the subject area of ​​historical research, determine the choice of its methodological guidelines, and formulate the basic rules of cognitive activity in historical research.

The methodology of historical research has a multilevel structure. According to one idea that exists in the scientific literature, its first level is knowledge of a philosophical nature. At this level, the methodological function is performed by epistemology as a theory of knowledge. The second level is scientific concepts and formal methodological theories, which include theoretical knowledge about the essence, structure, principles, rules and methods of scientific research in general. The third level is represented by theoretical knowledge, which is distinguished by its subject attachment and the relevance of methodological recommendations only to a certain class of research tasks and cognitive situations specific to a given field of knowledge.

According to another view, in order to understand the methodology of scientific knowledge in relation to historical research, the following levels can be distinguished in the structure of the methodology of specific historical research: 1. The model of historical research as a system of normative knowledge that defines the subject area of ​​historical knowledge, its cognitive means and the role of the scientist in obtaining new historical knowledge. 2. The paradigm of historical research as a model and standard for setting and solving a certain class of research problems, adopted in the scientific community to which the researcher belongs. 3. Historical theories related to the subject area of ​​specific historical research, forming its scientific thesaurus, model of the subject and used as explanatory constructs or understanding concepts. 4. Methods of historical research as ways to solve individual research problems.

In accordance with modern ideas about science, theory means understanding in terms of certain empirical observations. This comprehension (giving meaning, attributing meaning) is synonymous with theorizing. Just like the collection of information (empirical data), theorizing is an integral component of any science, including historical science. As a result, the final result of the historian's work, the historical discourse, contains various theoretical concepts on which the historian relies, starting with the dating of the event described (whether it is an epoch or just an indication of the year in some system of chronology). Theorizing (comprehension in concepts) can take different forms. There are various ways of structuring theories, typologies for classifying theoretical approaches, from simple empirical generalizations to metatheories. The simplest concept is reduced to the dichotomy "description - explanation". Under this scheme scientific theories are divided into two "ideal types" - description and explanation. The proportions in which these parts are present in a particular theory can vary significantly. These two parts or types of theory correspond to the philosophical concepts of particular and general (single and typical). Any description, first of all, operates with particular (single), in turn, the explanation is based on the general (typical).

Historical knowledge (like any other scientific knowledge) can be both predominantly description (inevitably including some elements of explanation) and predominantly explanation (certainly including some elements of description), as well as representing these two types of theory in any proportion.

The difference between description and explanation arises at the dawn of the development of philosophical thought in Ancient Greece. The founders of two types of historical discourse - description and explanation - are Herodotus and Thucydides. Herodotus is mainly interested in the events themselves, the degree of guilt or responsibility of their participants, while the interests of Thucydides are aimed at the laws by which they occur, clarifying the causes and consequences of ongoing events.

With the strengthening of Christianity in the era of the late Roman Empire, and after its fall and the beginning of an era called the Middle Ages, history (historical discourse) becomes almost exclusively a description, and history-explanation disappears from practice for many centuries.

In the Renaissance, history figures predominantly in the meaning of the text, not knowledge, and the study of history is reduced to the study of ancient texts. A radical change in attitude to history occurs only in the 16th century. As an explanatory factor, in addition to Providence and individual motives, Fortune appears more and more often, resembling some kind of impersonal historical force. In the second half of the XVI century. a real breakthrough is being made in understanding history as a type of knowledge, for a little more than half a century, dozens of historical and methodological treatises appear.

The next change in the interpretation of the theoretical foundations of history takes place in the 17th century, and this revolution is made by F. Bacon. By history, he means any description, and by philosophy/science, any explanation. “History ... deals with single phenomena ( individual), which are considered in certain conditions of place and time ... All this has to do with memory ... Philosophy does not deal with single phenomena and not with sensory impressions, but with abstract concepts deduced from them ... This fully belongs to the field of reason ... We consider history and experimental knowledge as a single concept, just like philosophy and science. F. Bacon's scheme gained wide popularity and was used by many scientists of the 17th-18th centuries. Until the end of the XVIII century. history was understood as scientific and descriptive knowledge, which was opposed to scientific and explanatory knowledge. In the terminology of that time, this was reduced to the opposition of facts and theory. In modern terms, a fact is a statement about the existence or implementation, recognized as true (corresponding to the criteria of truth accepted in a given society or social group). In other words, facts are an integral part of the description. In turn, what was called theory in Bacon's time is now called explanation, and by theoretical we mean, among other things, descriptive statements.

In the 19th century positivist studies appeared, they did not distinguish between natural and social sciences. The social sciences included two generalized disciplines: the explanatory ("theoretical") science of society - sociology, and the descriptive ("factual") science of society - history. Gradually, this list expanded due to economics, psychology, etc., and history continued to be understood as the descriptive part of social scientific knowledge, as a field of knowledge of specific facts, as opposed to "real" science, which deals with knowledge general laws. For the historian, according to the positivist, the main thing is the presence of a real object, a document, a “text”. At the end of the XIX century. anti-positivist "counter-revolution" begins. The popularizer of Darwinism T. Huxley proposed to distinguish between prospective sciences - chemistry, physics (where the explanation goes from cause to effect), and retrospective sciences - geology, astronomy, evolutionary biology, the history of society (where the explanation comes from the effect and "rises" to the cause). The two types of sciences, in his opinion, presuppose, respectively, two types of causality. Prospective sciences offer "certain" explanations, while retrospective (essentially historical) sciences, including the history of society, can only offer "probable" explanations. In fact, Huxley was the first to formulate the idea that within the framework of scientific knowledge there can be different ways of explaining. This created an opportunity to abandon the hierarchy of scientific knowledge, to equalize the "scientific status" of different disciplines.

A significant role in the development of the philosophy of science was played by the struggle for the sovereignty of social science within the framework of the philosophical trend that arose in Germany in the 19th century, which is referred to as "historicism". Its representatives were united by the idea of ​​a fundamental difference between natural and social sciences, the rejection of attempts to build "social physics", the proof of the "otherness" of social science and the struggle against the notion of the secondary importance of this other, in comparison with the natural science, type of knowledge. These ideas were developed by V. Dilthey, V. Windelband and G. Rickert. They abandoned the traditional division of descriptive and explanatory knowledge, and began to use the term "understanding" as a generalizing feature of the social sciences, which they opposed to the natural scientific "explanation". The "historicists" began to designate by "history" all social-scientific knowledge (or the totality of the social sciences is beginning to be called "historical").

In the second half of the 20th century, the process of delimitation of the natural-scientific and social-scientific types of knowledge, which began at the end of the 19th century, was completed (at the conceptual level). There was an idea that explanation is inherent in the humanities (social) sciences to the same extent as in the natural ones, just the nature of the explanation (procedures, rules, techniques, etc.) in these two types of scientific knowledge differ markedly. Social sciences dealing with social reality, i.e. with human actions, their causes and results, their own, special methods of explanation are inherent, different from the natural sciences.

So, in historical discourse, as in any science, two "ideal types" of theories can be distinguished - description and explanation. Along with the terms "description and explanation", other names are used to distinguish between the two types of historical scientific discourse. For example, at the beginning of the 20th century N. Kareev proposed to use the terms "historiography" and "historiology", currently the terms "descriptive" and "problem" history are also used.

Unlike the specific social sciences, which specialize in the study of one part of one social reality (a given society), history studies almost all elements of all known past social realities. In the 60-70s of the XX century. historians actively mastered the theoretical apparatus of other social sciences, so-called "new" histories began to develop - economic, social, political. The "new" history was strikingly different from the "old" one. Studies written in the spirit of the "new" history were characterized by a distinctly explanatory (analytical) rather than descriptive (narrative) approach. In the field of source processing, the "new" historians also made a real revolution, widely using mathematical methods that made it possible to master huge arrays of statistics hitherto inaccessible to historians. But the main contribution of "new histories" to historical science was not so much in the spread of quantitative methods or computer processing of mass sources of information, but in the active use of theoretical explanatory models for the analysis of past societies. In historical research, concepts and concepts developed in theoretical economics, sociology, political science, cultural anthropology, psychology. Historians have adopted not only macro-theoretical approaches (economic cycles, conflict theory, modernization, acculturation, the problem of power, mentality), but also turned to micro-analysis involving relevant theoretical concepts (consumer function, bounded rationality, network interaction, etc.) .

Consequently, any historical discourse is “permeated through” with theory, but taking into account the existing objective limitations and specific functions of historical knowledge, theorizing in this area of ​​knowledge takes other forms than in other humanities.

Like any other science, historical science relies both on general methodological foundations and on a specific set of principles and methods of research activity. Principles are the most general guidelines, rules, and starting points that a scientist is guided by when solving a particular scientific problem. Historical science has its own principles, the main of which are: the principle of historicism; the principle of a systematic approach (systemic); the principle of objectivity; value approach.

The principle of historicism, which is based on the consideration of facts and phenomena in their development, provides for the study of facts and phenomena in the process of their formation, change and transition to a new quality, in connection with other phenomena, requires the researcher to consider phenomena, events, processes in their relationship and interdependence, and exactly as they took place in a particular era, i.e. evaluate the era according to its internal laws, and not be guided by its own moral, ethical, political principles that belong to another historical time.

The principle of consistency (systemic approach) assumes that any historical phenomenon can be understood and explained only as part of something more general in time and space. This principle directs the researcher to the disclosure of the entire integrity of the object under study, the reduction of all components of the relationships and functions that determine the mechanism of its activity into a single picture. Society in historical development is considered as a super-complex self-regulating system with diverse connections that are constantly changing, but at the same time remain an integral system with a certain structure.

The principle of objectivity. The main goal of any historical research is to obtain reliable, true knowledge about the past. Truth means the need to achieve ideas about the phenomenon or object being studied that are adequate to it. Objectivity is an attempt to reproduce the object of study as it exists in itself, regardless of human consciousness. However, it turns out that "in fact" researchers are not interested in objective reality proper, or rather, not in what is presented to ordinary thinking behind these words. As the modern historian I.N. Danilevsky, we are hardly concerned about the fact that once, about 227,000 average solar days back, approximately at the intersection of 54 ° with. sh. and 38° E. on a relatively small plot of land (about 9.5 sq. km), bounded on both sides by rivers, several thousand representatives of biological kind of homo sapiens, which for several hours with the help of various devices destroyed each other. Then, the survivors dispersed: one group went south and the other north.

Meanwhile, this is exactly what happened, “in fact”, objectively, on the Kulikovo field in 1380, but the historian is interested in something completely different. It is much more important who these “representatives” considered themselves to be, how they identified themselves and their communities, because of what and why they tried to exterminate each other, how they assessed the results of the act of self-destruction, etc. questions. A fairly strict separation of our ideas about what and how happened in the past from how all this was presented to contemporaries and subsequent interpreters of events is necessary.

The principle of value approach. In the historical process, the researcher-historian is interested not only in the general and particular, but also in the assessment of a particular phenomenon that occurred in the past. The value approach in historical science proceeds from the fact that in world history there are certain generally recognized cultural achievements that constitute unconditional values ​​for human existence. From here, all the facts and deeds of the past can be evaluated, correlating them with such achievements, and, on the basis of this, a value judgment can be made. Among them are the values ​​of religion, state, law, morality, art, science.

At the same time, it should be taken into account that there is no generally accepted gradation of values ​​for all peoples and communities. Because of this, there is no possibility of creating an objective evaluation criterion, and therefore, when applying this method, there will always be subjective differences between individual historians. Moreover, for each historical time, value orientations were different, therefore, it is necessary not to judge, but to understand history.

In practice, the principles of historical knowledge are implemented in specific methods of historical research. A method is a set of techniques and operations that allow one to obtain new knowledge from already known material. scientific method is a theoretically substantiated normative cognitive tool, a set of requirements and tools for solving a given problem.

First of all, general scientific methods used in any field of knowledge are needed. They are divided into methods of empirical research (observation, measurement, experiment) and methods of theoretical research (logical method, including methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, the method of ascent from the concrete to the abstract, modeling, etc.) General scientific methods are classification and typology, implying the allocation of the general and the special, which ensures the systematization of knowledge. These methods allow you to select types, classes and groups of similar objects or phenomena.

In historical research, in addition to general scientific methods, special historical methods are used. Let's highlight the most significant of them.

The ideographic method is a descriptive method. The need to consider any event in relation to others suggests a description. The human factor in history - the individual, the collective, the masses - needs to be characterized. The image of a participant (subject) of historical action - individual or collective, positive or negative - can only be descriptive, therefore, description is a necessary link in the picture of historical reality, the initial stage of the historical study of any event or process, an important prerequisite for understanding the essence of phenomena.

The historical-genetic method is based in its application on the literal meaning of the Greek concept " genesis» - origin, occurrence; the process of formation and formation of a developing phenomenon. The historical-genetic method is part of the principle of historicism. With the help of the historical-genetic method, the main causal relationships are established, and also, this method allows you to distinguish the key provisions of historical development, due to the characteristics of the historical era, country, national and group mentality and personal traits of the participants in the historical process.

The problem-chronological method involves the analysis of historical material in chronological order, but within the selected problem blocks, it allows you to focus on the consideration of one or another component of the historical process in dynamics.

synchronous method. Synchrony (a “horizontal cut” of the historical process) makes it possible to compare similar phenomena, processes, institutions among different peoples, in different states in the same historical time, which makes it possible to identify common patterns and national characteristics.

diachronic method. Diachronic comparison (“vertical cut” of the historical process) is used to compare the state of the same phenomenon, process, system in different periods of activity. qualitatively different stages, periods of their evolution. Using the diachronic method, periodization is carried out, which is an obligatory component of research work.

Comparative-historical (comparative) method. It consists in identifying similarities and differences between historical objects, comparing them in time and space, explaining phenomena using analogy. At the same time, comparison must be applied in the complex of its two opposite sides: individualizing, which allows considering the singular and special in a fact and phenomenon, and synthetic, which makes it possible to draw a logical thread of reasoning to identify general patterns. The comparative method was first embodied by the ancient Greek historian Plutarch in his "biographies" of portraits of political and public figures.

The retrospective method of historical knowledge involves a consistent penetration into the past in order to identify the causes of the event. Retrospective analysis consists in a gradual movement from the current state of the phenomenon to the past, in order to isolate earlier elements and causes. The methods of retrospective (return) and prospective analysis make it possible to update the information received. The method of prospective analysis (performing a similar operation, only in the "reverse" direction) allows us to consider the significance of certain phenomena and ideas for subsequent historical development. The use of these methods can help predict the further evolution of society.

The historical-systemic method of cognition consists in establishing the relationships and interaction of objects, revealing the internal mechanisms of their functioning and historical development. All historical events have their own cause and are interconnected, that is, they are systemic in nature. Even in simple historical systems, there are diverse functions, determined both by the structure of the system and by its place in the hierarchy of systems. The historical-system method requires an appropriate approach to each specific historical reality: conducting structural and functional analyzes of this reality, studying it not as consisting of individual properties, but as a qualitatively integral system that has a complex of its own features, occupies a certain place and plays a certain role in the hierarchy systems. As an example of system analysis, one can cite the work of F. Braudel “Material Civilization, Economics and Capitalism”, in which the author formulated a systematized “theory of the multi-stage structure of historical reality”. In history, he distinguishes three layers: event, opportunistic and structural. Explaining the features of his approach, Braudel writes: "Events are just dust and are only brief flashes in history, but they cannot be considered as meaningless, because they sometimes illuminate the layers of reality." From these systemic approaches, the author examines the material civilization of the XV-XVIII centuries. reveals the history of the world economy, the industrial revolution, etc.

Special methods, borrowed from other branches of science, can be used to solve specific particular problems of research, verify its results, and study previously untouched aspects of society. The attraction of new methods from related industries has become an important trend in historical research due to a significant expansion of the source base, which has been replenished due to archaeological research, the introduction of new arrays of archival materials into circulation, as well as the development of new forms of transmission and storage of information (audio, video, electronic media, the Internet).

The application of certain methods depends on the goals and objectives that the scientist sets himself. The knowledge obtained with their help is interpreted within the framework of various macrotheories, concepts, models, measurements of history. It is no coincidence, therefore, that in the course of the development of historical science several methodological approaches have developed to explain the meaning and content of the historical process.

The first of them consists in looking at history as a single stream of progressive, upward movement of mankind. Such an understanding of history presupposes the existence of stages in the development of mankind as a whole. Therefore, it can be called unitary-stage (from lat. unitas- unity), evolutionist. Linear model history was formed in antiquity - in the Iranian-Zoroastrian environment and the Old Testament consciousness, on the basis of which Christian (as well as Jewish and Muslim) historiosophy was formed. This approach found its manifestation in isolating such basic stages of human history as savagery, barbarism, civilization (A. Ferguson, L. Morgan), as well as in the division of history into hunting and gathering, pastoral (shepherd), agricultural and commercial and industrial periods. (A. Turgot, A. Smith). It is also present in the selection in the history of civilized mankind of four world-historical epochs: ancient Eastern, ancient, medieval and new (L. Bruni, F. Biondo, K. Koehler).

The Marxist concept of history also belongs to the unitary-stage concept. In it, five socio-economic formations (primitive communal, ancient, feudal, capitalist and communist) act as stages in the development of mankind. This is what they mean when they talk about the formational conception of history. Another unitary concept is the concept of post-industrial society (D. Bell, E. Toffler, G. Kahn, Z. Brzezinski). Within its framework, three stages are distinguished: traditional (agrarian), industrial (industrial) and post-industrial (sensitive, information, etc.) society. The space of historical changes in this approach is unified and has the structure of a "layer cake", and in its center - Western European history - there is a "correct" (exemplary) arrangement of layers and movement from the bottom to the top. The layers are deformed along the edges, although the general pattern of movement from the lower layers to the higher ones is preserved, adjusted for specific historical specifics.

The second approach to understanding history is cyclical, civilizational. The cyclic model of world perception was formed in the ancient agricultural civilizations and received a philosophical interpretation in ancient Greece (Plato, the Stoics). The space of historical changes in the cyclical approach is not united, but breaks up into independent formations, each of which has its own history. However, all historical formations, in principle, are arranged in the same way and have a circular structure: origin - growth - flourishing - breakdown - decline. These formations are called differently: civilizations (J.A. Gobineau and A.J. Toynbee), cultural-historical individuals (G. Ruckert), cultural-historical types (N.Ya. Danilevsky), cultures or great cultures (O . Spengler), ethnoi and superethnoi (L.N. Gumilyov).

The evolutionist approach makes it possible to identify the accumulation of a new quality, shifts in the economic, socio-cultural, institutional and political spheres of life, certain stages that society goes through in its development. The picture that is obtained as a result of applying this approach resembles a set of discrete segments stretched along a hypothetical line that represents the movement from a point of underdevelopment to progress. The civilizational approach focuses on a complex of rather slowly changing parameters that characterize the socio-cultural and civilizational core of a social system. Within the framework of this approach, the researcher focuses on the inertia of history, on the continuity (continuity, sequence) of the historical past and present.

Different in their essence, these approaches complement each other. Indeed, the entire course of human history convinces us that there is development and progress in it, despite the possibility of serious crises and reverse movements. Moreover, individual components of the social structure change (and develop) unevenly, with various speeds, and the rate of development of each of them has a certain effect on other components (accelerating or slowing down their development). A society at a lower stage of development differs in a number of ways from a society at a more advanced stage. high level development (this also applies to a single society considered at different phases of its development). At the same time, changes are usually unable to completely blur the features that are attributed to a particular society. The transformations themselves often lead only to a regrouping, a rearrangement of accents in the complex of root parameters that characterize it, to a transfiguration of the relationships that exist between them.

The perception of the historical process on the basis of these approaches makes it possible to realize that the world is infinitely diverse and that is why it cannot exist without conflict, but at the same time, objectivity and the need for progressive development determine the search for compromises, the tolerant development of mankind.

In addition to these approaches, a significant addition to the development of modern methodology of history is the political science approach, which provides an opportunity to compare political systems and draw objective conclusions about historical and political processes.

The theory of mentalities, in turn, makes it possible to introduce into scientific circulation a new range of historical sources that reflect the everyday life of people, their thoughts and feelings, and to more adequately reconstruct the past through the view of a person who lived in this past.

Enriches the modern methodology of historical science and a synergistic approach that allows us to consider each system as a certain unity of order and chaos. Particular attention should be paid to the complexity and unpredictability of the behavior of the systems under study during periods of their unstable development, at bifurcation points, when insignificant causes can have a direct impact on the choice of the vector of social development. According to the synergetic approach, the dynamics of complex social organizations is associated with a regular alternation of acceleration and deceleration of the development process, limited decay and reconstruction of structures, and a periodic shift of influence from the center to the periphery and back. Partial return to cultural and historical traditions in the new conditions, according to the synergetic concept, is a necessary condition for maintaining a complex social organization.

In historical science, the wave approach is also known, focusing on the wave-like nature of the evolution of complex social systems. This approach also allows for alternative options for the development of human society and the possibility of changing the vector of development, but not returning society to its original state, but moving it along the path of modernization, not without the participation of traditions.

Other approaches deserve attention: the historical-anthropological, phenomenological and historiosophical approach, which defines the task - to reveal the meaning and purpose of the historical process, the meaning of life.

Acquaintance of the student with various methodological approaches to the study of the historical process makes it possible to overcome one-sidedness in the explanation and understanding of history, and contributes to the development of historicism of thinking.

test questions

1. What are the main levels of the methodology of historical research, which of them, in your opinion, is the most important and why?

2. What, in your opinion, should prevail in historical research: description or explanation?

3. Can historians be absolutely objective?

4. Give examples of the use of historical-genetic and problem-chronological methods.

5. Which approach to the study of history: evolutionary or cyclic is more clear to you and why?

Literature

1.Historical science today: Theories, methods, perspectives. M., 2012.

2. Methodological problems of history / Ed. Ed. V.N. Sidortsov. Minsk, 2006.

3. Repina L.P. Historical science at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries. M., 2011.

4. Savelyeva I.M., Poletaev A.V. Knowledge of the past: theory and history. St. Petersburg, 2003.

5. Tertyshny A.T., Trofimov A.V. Russia: images of the past and meanings of the present. Yekaterinburg, 2012.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A. V. Lubsky

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

Literature:

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

Methods of historical research.

Method is a means of historical research. With the help of research methods, there is an accumulation of historical knowledge, as well as a refinement of ideas about the past.

Methods of historical research are divided into:

• Specially historical.
• General scientific.

The following research methods are specifically historical:

1) The ideographic (descriptive - narrative) method involves not only the description of historical events and phenomena, but also reduces to it the functions of historical knowledge in general.

Historical knowledge begins with a description of a particular phenomenon. To reveal the individual originality of the object of historical knowledge, the corresponding language means of expression are used. The ideographic method allows fixing the unique features of a historical phenomenon.

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 one degree or another, express the true essence of the depicted

Description is a necessary link in the picture of historical reality, the initial stage of the historical study of any event or process, an important condition and prerequisite for understanding the essence of phenomena. However, by itself it does not provide such an understanding. In fact, description, although an important step in this cognition, is not a universal method. This is just one of the procedures of the historian's thinking. It prepares the ground for further essential-content analysis.

2) The retrospective method (from Latin retro - back and specio - I look) is a consistent immersion in the past in order to identify the causes of events.

Historical processes develop in the direction "from the past to the present", from the formation of the causes of the phenomenon to the emergence of the phenomenon itself. The process of historical knowledge "moves" in the opposite direction: from knowledge about events and phenomena to determining their causes and preconditions. That is, it refers to how events developed in reality - from cause to effect. The historian goes from the effect to the cause. The significance of earlier historical phenomena can only be comprehended if later ones are taken into account.

The essence of the retrospective method is to use knowledge about a higher stage of historical development to understand and evaluate the previous one. The fact is that in order to understand the essence of the studied event or process of thinking, it is necessary to trace its development from end to end. Each previous stage can be understood not only in terms of its connection with other stages, but also in the light of the subsequent and higher stage of development as a whole, in which the essence of the whole process is most fully expressed.

The essence of the retrospective method was best expressed by K. Marx. It is about understanding quite specific phenomena and about history in general. About the method of studying the medieval community by the German G. L. Maurer, K. Marx wrote: “But the stamp of this “agricultural” community is so clearly expressed in the new community that Maurer, having studied the latter, could restore the first.”

In Russian historiography, the retrospective method was successfully used by I. D. Kovalchenko in the study of agrarian relations in Russia in the 19th century. The essence of the method was an attempt to consider the peasant economy at different system levels: individual peasant farms (yards), a higher level - peasant communities (villages), even higher levels - volosts, counties, provinces. The system of provinces represents the highest level, it was on it, according to the scientist, that the main features of the socio-economic system of the peasant economy were most clearly manifested. ID Kovalchenko believed that their knowledge is necessary to reveal the essence of structures that are at a lower level. The nature of the structure at the lowest (household) level, being correlated with its essence at highest level, shows the extent to which the general trends in the functioning of the peasant economy were manifested in a single one.

The retrospective method is applicable to the study of not only individual phenomena, but also entire historical epochs. This essence of the method is most clearly expressed by K. Marx. He wrote: “Bourgeois society is the most developed and most versatile historical organization of production. Therefore, the categories that express its relations, the understanding of its organization, at the same time make it possible to penetrate into the organization and production relations of all obsolete social forms, from the fragments and elements of which it is built, partly continuing to drag along the remnants that have not yet been overcome, partly developing that that before there was only a hint, and so on. Human anatomy is the key to monkey anatomy. On the contrary, the hints of the higher in the lower species of animals can only be understood if this higher itself is already known later.

3) "Method of Survivals". In a concrete historical study, the retrospective method is very closely related to the “survival method”, by which historians understand the method of reconstructing objects that have gone into the past according to the remains that have survived and have come down to the modern historian of the era.

The well-known researcher of primitive society E. Taylor (1832-1917) wrote: “Among the evidence that helps us trace the actual course of civilization, there is an extensive class of facts, for which I would consider it convenient to introduce the term “survival”. These are those customs, rituals, views, which, being transferred by force of habit from one stage of culture, to which they were characteristic, to another, later one, remain living evidence or a monument of the past.

In the broad sense of the word, we can include monuments, information of a relic nature as remnants.

If we are talking about written sources belonging to a certain era, then data or fragments included from older documents may be relic in them. The most striking example of sources containing information about the contemporary era (fixation) of their origin and the remnants of more ancient eras are barbaric truths. Fixing in the form of legal regulations the emergence of the state, the privileges of its officials, these sources contain a lot of information related to the routines of tribal relations, i.e. to customary law.

4) The historical-systemic method consists in considering society as an integral system. The objective basis for using a systematic approach is the fact that social reality does not consist of separate and isolated objects, phenomena and processes, but is a collection of interconnected and interacting objects, certain integral, systemic formations.

5) Comparative (comparatively - historical) method is a comparison of historical objects in space and time. With the help of the comparative method, simultaneous (synchronous) and non-temporal (diachronic) events can be compared. Comparison makes it possible to identify both similarities in various historical phenomena, as well as their unique, individual features.

The method of comparison has been known in science since the era of Antiquity.

The condition for the productive application of the comparative-historical method is the analysis of single-order events and processes. It is quite clear that such an analysis cannot be realized using this method as such. Until the characteristics of the compared events are given by a detailed, if possible, exhaustive identification of their features, the comparative historical method will not give a result or the result will be false. Moreover, it should be emphasized that the degree of knowledge of the compared should be approximately the same in each case, since the insufficient knowledge of any of the compared events can be taken as their insufficient development, which will inevitably lead to erroneous conclusions. Therefore, the productive use of this method is preceded by a detailed description of what is being studied as a result of the application of the descriptive-narrative method. The description acts as the basis for comparison.

Comparison of the studied phenomena differs in the degree of penetration into their essence. The initial stage of comparative analysis is analogy. Judgments by analogy, whether they concern simple events, actors or complex phenomena and processes, do not contain a decoding of their essence and are usually used as an illustration or proof of something. Analogy does not involve analysis, but the direct transfer of representations from object to object.

The next stage of comparative analysis is the identification of the essential and content characteristics of the subject being studied. In this case, we are talking about a comparison of one-order phenomena as a result of regular recurrence.

In the XVI century. Reformation took place in a number of Western European countries. It was caused by a number of similar reasons; it was based on the transition of society from medieval orders in all spheres of life to new, capitalist ones. This is the "earthly" roots of the Reformation, although its course in different countries had its own characteristics, including the content of the ideas put forward.

The next step is comparatively historical analysis is the reception of typology. The typology goes further than the content-essential analysis by means of comparison in the sense that types of single-order phenomena are distinguished.

6) Historical - typological method is to highlight the types of historical phenomena, their classification. The selection of types (classification) of single-order phenomena is based on comparative studies, but is not limited to them. The essence of the historical-typological method is to determine the features (criteria) that can become the basis for classification.

7) The problem-chronological method is the study of the sequence of historical events in time. Since the historical process develops “from the past to the present”, the result of the historical reconstruction of events is the alignment of their sequence according to the chronological principle, the formation of a “chain” of history “links” connected by causal relationships.

8) The biographical method is one of the oldest approaches to the study of history.

Some of its features were already identified in ancient historiography. So, Plutarch (c. 45 - c. 127) in his work "Comparative Lives" not only presented the biographies of great people, but also tried to look at their actions as history. Of course, ancient historians did not come to the conclusion that history is a product of human activity. Until the formation of this thesis, there are still whole centuries, since the idea of ​​providentialism dominated the historical thinking for more than a millennium. Even G. W. F. Hegel considered people with their passions, will, actions as puppets of the spirit.

With the development of historiography, the biographical method acquired an ever greater role in historiography. It is especially characteristic of various areas of the so-called political historiography, where the subject itself - political history - to a certain extent contributed to the promotion of the role of the personality of a politician as a real bearer of the highest state power.

An extreme expression of the biographical method was a variant of its interpretation associated with the theory of "heroes and the crowd" of the English historian T. Carlyle. This historian outlined his understanding of the role of great personalities in history in the lecture “Heroes, the veneration of heroes and the heroic in history”, read in 1841. In a book published later, he considered history as biographies of great personalities, and the people as a blind and mute instrument of their actions .

Among the most notable varieties of the biographical method is the method of collective biographies of the English historian L. Namier (1888-1960), which he used in the course of studying the activities of the English Parliament and subsequently became widespread in a number of national historiographies of the West and in the USA. L. Namier addressed the average, ordinary person, however, not to the person from the street, but to the deputy of the English parliament. This is the novelty of his approach. In 1928 the historian began to write the history of the English parliament, which he presented in the form of a biography of the deputies. L. Namier considered each of them as a representative of a certain social institution and identified dates of life, social origin and position, education, personal and business ties, behavior in different situations etc. The theoretical concept of the method of collective biographies is connected with the belief that understanding the causes of actions and explaining their nature can only break through the thickness of biographical details, thus revealing not the imaginary, but the true interests of a person. The only way to do this is to study all the details of his life. In accordance with this, the activity of the parliament looks like just a struggle of its members for power, career, personal well-being.

Narrowing the scope of the biographical method in the historiography of the second half of the 20th century. connected, firstly, with the loss of political history of its former traditional role and, secondly, with the emergence of new branches of historical research in the historical science of a number of countries around the world.

Is the appearance of a great personality an accident or does it depend on the era, on the conditions surrounding it? Undoubtedly, it is only by taking into account the nature of historical conditions that one can understand the actions of a historical personality, and hence the causes of its emergence. She owes her appearance not to herself, more precisely, not only to herself, not only to her talent, will, striving for results, etc., but also to the environment. One can only guess how many people outstanding in their personal qualities remained unknown or did not realize themselves due to the fact that they were prevented by the era in which they lived, that their time had not come, etc. One of these people was the famous Russian statesman MM Speransky (1772-1839), whose reform projects were far ahead of their time. Paradoxically, in order for great commanders to appear, war is needed. In order for a great personality to appear, conditions are necessary, and more specifically, a situation of maturing social change. These changes advance the personality, against their background the personality becomes great, exerting a large-scale influence on the course of events by realizing the desire for change by millions who have realized their need.