Historical consciousness and its significance for a specialist. Forms of historical consciousness
LECTURE 1.
SUBJECT OF HISTORY AS A SCIENCE,
Plan.
1. The subject of history as a science.
Object The study of history is human society. The term “history” is of Greek origin and literally means “narration”, “story”. The patron muse of history is called Clio, the daughter of Zeus and the goddess of memory Mnemosyne. The ancient Greek writer Herodotus (5th century BC) is considered the father of history. The subject of history As a science, it is a set of activities and actions of people, human communities, which are in a certain relationship. History is the science of the development of human society, of the entire set of relations in society.
Branches of historical knowledge:
3. history of state and law
5. archeology
6. history of music, culture, language, literature.
Goals and objectives of studying history.
Historian N.M. Karamzin wrote: “History, in a sense, is the sacred book of peoples: the main, necessary; a mirror of their existence and activity; the tablet of revelations and rules; the covenant of ancestors to posterity; addition, explanation of the present and example for the future.”
History is a huge array of spiritual, moral, cultural and social experience of humanity. Historical science provides access to this historical experience. Scientific knowledge of the social world is important element human interaction with the world. In Russia always historical knowledge served as a support in the formation social relations and culture.
2. Historical consciousness: essence, forms and functions.
From the point of view of the form of social consciousness, historical science is, firstly, one of the ways of understanding the world, which is characterized by specific methods, and secondly, an area scientific knowledge about processes and patterns of development.
Among other forms of social consciousness, historical consciousness also stands out, i.e. a set of ideas, views, perceptions, feelings, moods that reflect the perception and assessment of the past in all its diversity.
Forms of historical consciousness.
1. Ordinary historical consciousness is formed on the basis life experience of people. It is subjective, emotional, unsystematic.
2. Theoretical historical consciousness is formed on the basis of theoretical understanding of the past, generalized historical experience, scientific worldview. It is built on historical categories, comprehends the historical process in dynamics, in the interrelation of times.
Functions of historical consciousness.
They consist in ensuring the awareness of the community of people of their unity, common historical destiny, traditions, culture, language, psychology.
3. Methods and sources of studying history. Concept and classification of historical source.
Historical sources are all evidence about the past. Sources contain primary information about events close to them in time.
In my own way appearance, nature and content, historical sources fall into three main types: material, oral and written. In addition to the main ones, there are also ethnographic, linguistic, photographic and film documents, and phonological documents.
Real the sources are in turn divided into three main categories: 1. Housing monuments – sites, settlements. 2. Funeral monuments – mounds, burial grounds. 3. Treasures.
Oral history sources include folk legends, everyday remnants, and folk epics.
Written sources appear at the stage of civilization. These include chronicles, monuments of law - collections of laws, statutes, population censuses, individual literary and political works, memoirs, letters, notes, diaries, tales of foreigners.
Russian chronicles began in the 11th century and provided rich material on the history of Kievan Rus. By the beginning of the 12th century, the Tale of Bygone Years was formed - one of the most famous written sources. Great value for the history of Kievan Rus have such literary works as "The Tale of Igor's Campaign". The most valuable legal monument ancient Rus' is the “Russian Truth” (11th century) that has come down to us in more than a hundred handwritten copies. The source for studying not only legal, but also socio-economic relations of Russian lands are “Code Code” of 1497, 1550, 1589, “Stoglav” of 1551. Cathedral Code 1649 is a source for studying the history of the Moscow state of the 17th century.
Political sources include the Prayer of Daniil Zatochnik (12th century), “The Tale of the Princes of Vladimir” (15th century), Kurbsky’s correspondence with Ivan the Terrible, “The History of the Grand Duke of Moscow” by Prince Kurbsky.
4. Domestic historiography in the past and present: general and special
V.N. is considered the father of historical science in Russia. Tatishchev (1686-1750), author of the first “Russian History”. Being a political figure of the era of Peter 1, he based his work on a political principle - the history of the Russian state. Tatishchev began developing the historical method, auxiliary historical disciplines, source studies, historical geography. The merit of the historiography of the 18th century is the development of the source study problem. G.F. Miller (1705-1782) introduced a new category of sources—actual material, while Tatishchev relied only on chronicles. Miller laid the foundations of historical and archival work in Russia. He created the first Russian historical magazine in 1732, Sammlung russischer Geschichte. A.L. Shletser (1735-1809) in his work “Nestor” developed scientific method critical study of sources. “Russian History from Ancient Times” by Prince M.M. Shcherbatova (1735-1790) is built on extensive new documentary material: acts, contractual and spiritual letters. Historiographer Alexandra 1 N.M. Karamzin (1766-1826), according to his contemporaries, revealed Russian history to a wide mass of readers as Columbus America. His 12-volume “History of the Russian State” is largely of a literary and artistic nature.
Bourgeois historiography of the 19th century was based on the theory of the unity of the historical process, the idea of historical regularity, and the principle of scientific criticism of sources. Fundamental work CM. Solovyov’s (1820-1879) 29-volume “History of Russia since Ancient Times” played a significant role in the historiography of the 19th century. For Solovyov, the head of the school of statist historians, Russian history is the history of the Russian state, historical development consists of the transition from tribal relations to family and statehood. He sees the ideal of Russian statehood in the reforms of Peter 1. Student of Solovyov V.O. Klyuchevsky (1841-1911), being a statist, at the same time, for the first time in Russian historiography, reflected social and economic themes in his “Course of Russian History.”
During the Soviet period, historiography was dominated by the Marxist-Leninist concept of the historical process, which assigned a decisive role in people’s lives to the productive forces of society, and viewed historical progress as a change in socio-economic formations. The historiography of the Soviet period was under pressure from ideology. The Short Course “History of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks”, compiled with the direct participation of I.V., was of decisive importance for historians. Stalin. An example of a deviation from the prevailing theory can be considered “ historical school Pokrovsky,” who put forward the doctrine of the peasant nature of the “national roots of the Russian revolution.”
Since the 90s of the twentieth century, modern historiography has affirmed new approaches to the interpretation of the historical process. The new approaches are as follows:
1. Overcoming one-sidedness in assessing phenomena, facts, and the role of individuals in history.
2. Overcoming underestimation of the importance of factors of a subjective nature, the spiritual sphere of society, and national characteristics.
3. Recognition of the principle of alternativeness, i.e. denial of the predetermination of historical development, allowing for the possibility of different paths of development.
4. A person is not considered only as a social category; the importance of the personal factor is taken into account.
5. Refusal to interpret the state only as an instrument of “class domination”; the state represents an independent force that protects national interests.
6. Refusal to recognize the class struggle as the driving force of the historical process, recognition of the significant role of the evolutionary, reformist path. The theme of the liberation movement is interpreted more broadly, not only as a revolutionary movement, but also as a liberal opposition movement.
A critical approach to previous principles of assessment does not mean their denial. The “class approach” is not completely denied, but its hypertrophied nature, the formational principle of periodization of the historical process, the methodological requirements of “historicism” - taking into account specific historical conditions, consideration historical event or phenomena in connection with others, the use of comparative historical analysis.
For the study of the historical process exclusively important role the choice of methodology plays a role.
5. Methodology of historical knowledge: formational and civilizational approaches.
Methodology of cognition is general principles, allowing to organize the material accumulated by researchers.
1. The formational approach was developed by K. Marx. Main role plays in determining the driving forces of the historical process and its periodization socio-economic formation. It is based on a certain method of production, that is, a certain level and nature of development of the productive forces and the production relations corresponding to them. The totality of production relations forms the basis over which there is a superstructure - political and legal relations. In its historical development, humanity went through 5 stages: primitive communal, slaveholding, feudal, capitalist and communist.
Disadvantages of the formational approach: it assumes the unilinear nature of historical development, does not reflect the multivariate nature of historical development, reduces the role of the human factor in history and exaggerates the role of social conflict.
Recently, in contrast to the formational approach, the civilizational approach to the study of human history has become most widespread in the research literature.
2. The civilizational approach was developed by M. Weber, A. Toynbee, O. Spengler, N. Danilevsky, P. Sorokin.
The main structural unit of the historical process is civilization. Civilization is holistic social system, consisting of closely interrelated elements (religion, culture, economics, politics, social organization). Civilization is very stable, despite certain changes under the influence of internal and external factors, the core of civilization remains unchanged. This approach is fixed in the theory of cultural and historical types of civilization by N. Danilevsky, A. Toynbee, O. Spengler. Cultural-historical types are historically established communities that occupy a certain territory and have their own characteristic features of cultural and social development.
The advantages of the civilizational approach include its universality, focus on multivariate development, and the integrity of history. The disadvantage lies in the amorphous nature of the criteria for identifying types of civilizations.
Historical knowledge and historical consciousness
One of the fundamental social functions of historical knowledge is the formation of historical consciousness. What is historical consciousness? According to one of the points of view of A. Levad), historical consciousness is considered as social memory. “This concept covers the whole variety of spontaneously formed or scientifically created forms in which society realizes (reproduces and evaluates) its past, or more precisely, in which society reproduces its movement in time.”
Yu. A. Levada sees the difference between historical consciousness and other forms of social consciousness in the fact that it introduces an additional dimension - time. Historical consciousness, therefore, is a type of knowledge by society of its past. Despite the fact that without social memory there cannot be historical consciousness, it is a mistake to identify historical consciousness and historical knowledge. Knowledge, especially professional historical knowledge, is the lot of a relatively small layer of people, while historical consciousness, by definition, is mass, one of the forms of social consciousness along with legal, national, moral and other forms. A more convincing view is that historical consciousness means the connection of times - past, present and future - in the consciousness of the individual and society as a whole. What does this connection of times mean, what does it give to society, how and why does it break, and what are the consequences of this break?
Historical consciousness is not only one of the problems of science, but also a vital problem of any society. The degree of stability of society, its ability to survive in critical circumstances and situations depends on the state of historical consciousness. Sustainable historical consciousness - the most important indicator stability of society, just as the torn, shredded state of historical consciousness is evidence of an impending crisis that has become a reality. Of course, the crisis of historical consciousness is secondary in comparison with the crisis of society and is a result, a consequence of the latter, but the destruction of historical consciousness can also be the result of purposeful efforts, ill will and intent. Then evil will becomes an instrument for cultivating people’s historical unconsciousness, depriving them of the ability to navigate the present, hope for the future and turning them into a tool for realizing a variety of goals, including those directed against their fundamental interests.
The connection of times is of vital importance and is the main feature of historical consciousness. This is also evidenced by eschatological ideas connecting the earthly and heavenly kingdoms, samsara and nirvana, etc.
A clear artistic understanding of the problem of historical consciousness - the words of Hamlet: (the connection of times has fallen apart.
What is the necessity and social significance of the connection of times? Both are determined by the social nature of man, the physical impossibility of his existence in one time dimension. Sometimes a question is asked that is not only rhetorical: “How does a person differ from animals?” Compassion, some say, but the dolphin washes ashore out of a sense of solidarity and compassion. Others believe that the ability to love, but the wolf remains faithful to one she-wolf, and the swan dies after the death of its girlfriend. The ability to laugh, others think, but monkeys fully possess this ability. The ability to create, others say, but the ability of monkeys to be creative when obtaining food has been proven, and the dance of cranes is more beautiful than any poorly choreographed dance. A distinctive feature of a person is the presence of memory, which holds in unity his past, present and his plans, hopes for the future. With all the reality of the manifestation of the so-called “vegetative existence of man,” his earthly existence does not occur only in any one time dimension of the three named modalities. The opposite of memory is unconsciousness, which took on artistic form in the image of Mowgli. Such is Professor Bourne with his efforts to discover a drug that deprives people of their memory (the film "Dead Season"). The demons of F.M. Dostoevsky with their clear program are forgettable: “It is necessary that a people like ours should not have history, and that what it had under the guise of history should be forgotten with disgust. Whoever curses his past is already ours - this is our formula.” However, in the latter case we're talking about no longer about individual memory, but about the collective memory of the people, mass historical sclerosis. Unconsciousness makes it impossible to properly navigate the present and the ability to understand what needs to be done in the future. Here's how I set such goals with an indication of how to implement them Hitler: “It would be wiser to install a loudspeaker in every village in order to inform people about the news and give them something to talk about; it's better than letting them in self-study political, scientific, etc. information. And let it not occur to anyone to transmit information about their past history to the conquered peoples by radio. Music and more music should be transmitted!.. And if people can dance more, then this should be welcomed.”
In the chain of times “past - present - future” the first link is both the most significant and the most vulnerable. The destruction of the connection of times, that is, historical consciousness, begins with the past. What does it mean to destroy historical memory? This means, first of all, breaking the connection of times. You can rely on history only if it is connected by a chain of times. To destroy consciousness, one must scatter history, turn it into unconnected episodes, i.e. create chaos in the mind, make it fragmentary. In this case public consciousness unable to form a holistic picture of development from individual pieces. This means a break in the dialogue between generations, between fathers and children, which leads to the tragedy of unconsciousness.
According to doctors, fragmentation, intermittency of thinking and consciousness is hallmark schizophrenia. Of course, there cannot be an identity between this state of human physiology and the break in the connection of times in the public consciousness, but the concept of illness, crisis is fully applicable in both cases.
To destroy historical memory means to remove, confiscate some part of the past, make it seem non-existent, declare it a mistake, a delusion. This can be attributed to the fragmentation of consciousness; consciousness becomes “schizophrenic.”
The impulse for the formation of historical consciousness or its destruction comes from the social environment that is contemporary at any given moment, but the means of achieving the mentioned goals is the formation of an attitude towards the past. Changing the image of the past contributes to the desire of a person or society to change the situation they are experiencing at every moment. It is not the past itself that dictates the attitude toward the past, but the historian’s contemporary environment. The past itself cannot oblige anyone to one or another attitude towards oneself, therefore, it cannot prevent the worst of them, which grossly distorts the real image of the past to please the present. Scientific arguments cannot prevent this; therefore, the area for solving this issue is not historical science, but society. Historical knowledge is able to offer a more or less adequate image of the past, but whether it becomes an element of historical consciousness or not depends on society, the state and distribution of social forces in it, the position of power and the state. The struggle of social forces for the past, for one or another image of it, is also a struggle for historical consciousness, for one or another of its contents.
Of course, the impact on historical knowledge modern historian environment cannot be eliminated.
Historical knowledge is not the only and impeccable source of the formation of historical consciousness, but not by its nature in general, but in relation to those situations when an image of the past is transmitted to the area of mass consciousness that does not meet the requirements of its adequacy, i.e., truth. The work of a historian is the primary source of information about the past, but this information is transmitted through third parties (by means mass media, using techniques of artistic representation of reality), which greatly expands the likelihood of forming a distorted historical inquiry.
The connection of times is broken during periods of acute social crises, social upheavals, coups, and revolutions. Any deviation from the consistently evolutionary dynamics of development inevitably leads to one or another form of social crisis, including a crisis of historical consciousness, which cannot be classified as manipulation. Revolutionary upheavals that brought with them changes social order, gave rise to the deepest crises of historical creation. However, historical experience shows that the connection between times was eventually restored. Society at all times feels the need to restore connections with the past, with its roots: any era is generated by the stage of historical development that precedes it - and it is impossible to overcome this connection, that is, to start development from a certain zero point. As a result, there arises a need to place a given state of society in one form or another of dependence, even with the most “difficult” in terms of compatibility periods of previous development. An example is the desire to determine the attitude of the Federal Republic of Germany to the Nazi past, which during the decades of the post-war history of this country was considered “not overcome.” To overcome means to look at the past as a link between what preceded it and what happened afterwards. History and consciousness do not tolerate emptiness, the connection of times is being restored.
In the structure of modern historical consciousness in Russia, one of the important aspects is the problem of attitude towards the period Soviet history. The very transition to this period in October 1917 meant a radical break with the past in all spheres; it was a deep crisis of historical consciousness. The transition to a new system was assessed in different ways: by some - as the collapse of all the foundations of life, by others - as deliverance from a difficult and painful past. The crisis of historical consciousness was also expressed in the denial of a significant part of the Russian past as unnecessary pages. In the field of historical education, this was expressed in the refusal to systematically study it, its fragmentation (textbooks by M.N. Pokrovsky, 1868-1932).
Of course, such an attitude towards the past of Russia could not be a stable and long-term foundation for building a new society, although it was widespread until 1934 - until the famous Resolution of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks on the teaching of history.
By this time, much had already been said about the insufficiency and inexpediency of abandoning the systematic study of history, about the inadequacy of forming a type of historical consciousness based only on individual episodes, layers of the past, taken out of the general context. This did not give a sense of the connection of times, and therefore, an understanding of the place of the new society in this chain of events.
The fragmentary and selective approach to depicting the past was replaced by a chronological approach, widespread until the October Socialist Revolution of 1917. Of course, a huge difference in the assessment of events, the watershed of which this revolution was, remained. However new stage development of Russia, which differed sharply from the pre-revolutionary era, was presented in this case as a certain result, a product of the past.
During the Second World War, pages of the Russian past associated with the names of Alexander Nevsky, Dmitry Donskoy, A.V. Suvorov, M.I. Kutuzov began to play a special role. Historical continuity in the development of the country in the public consciousness, including continuity Russian Empire and the Soviet Union, was restored.
The following is indicative. In J.V. Stalin’s address to the people on September 2, 1945, on the occasion of the victory over Japan, it was said that Japanese aggression against Russia began in 1904, then followed by intervention during the period Civil War, then Khasan and Khalkhin Gol. The defeat of the Russian troops in 1904 left difficult memories in the minds of the people, who believed that the day would come when this painful memory of the past would cease to burden the minds of people. JV Stalin emphasized that people of the older generation had been waiting for this day for 40 years.
One can, of course, argue with the logic of J.V. Stalin’s reasoning. However, what is important for us in this case is the desire of the head of state to present the events of the past and present as links in a single chain.
In the historical consciousness of Soviet society, the attitude towards the idea of continuity with the pre-revolutionary past did not increase the gap with it, but over time restored connections lost during the revolution and the years that followed it.
Much has changed in a positive sense and in the assessment of various events and characters. In the public consciousness of the post-October period, everything was determined by the position of state power. In historical consciousness, the emphasis was transferred from the past to the present and to the future (including in connection with the thesis of the coming world socialist revolution). There was a curse over the past that prevented it from becoming one of the links in historical consciousness.
But even such a tough authoritarian regime of power as Stalin’s could not maintain the inherited October revolution the structure of historical consciousness, the connection of times was restored. This is a lesson for historians and for anyone who seeks to learn from the past. The connection between times is inevitably restored not only after one revolution, but also, so to speak, a whole series of them - as, for example, in the history of France at the end of the 18th century. - first half of the 19th century V. The most significant in scale and consequences is the Great French revolution end of the 18th century could not erase either the past or the memory of it. In the historical memory of the French, this event is still called the Revolution, and the day of July 14, 1789, when the storming of the Bastille took place, remains a national holiday in France.
Thus, the connection of times is not destroyed as a result of even such fundamental changes in the life of society as revolutions. In this regard, the historian faces the question: “How to deal with the past?” The answer is very obvious: you cannot treat it arbitrarily, haphazardly, crossing out and rewriting its pages. A historian who considers some events “right” and others “wrong” can argue a lot, but this will be his history, where the author is only him, and not those people who were the creators of what actually happened in the past. It is impossible to help such a historian: after all, no one has been able to make the former not the former.
1. The concept of “historical consciousness”. Basic forms and levels of historical consciousness.
2. Modern historical consciousness. Monistic models of the historical process.
3. Post-modern historical consciousness. Pluralistic theories of the historical process.
4. Periodization of Russian history, factors of originality.
5. The role and place of Russia in world civilization in the assessments of historians of the 18th – 20th centuries. (Westerners and Slavophiles, “Eurasians”, G. Hegel, A. Toynbee, R. Pipes, etc.)
Main literature:
1. History of Russia in questions and answers / ed. Kislitsyna S.A. Rostov-on-Don, 2001
2. History of Russia / ed. Radugina A.A. M., 2004.
3. Russian civilization / ed. Mchedlova M.P. M., 2003.
4. Semennikova L.I. Russia in the world community of civilizations. M., 2008.
5. Tugusova G.V., Skorospelova V.A. History of the Fatherland from its origins to the present. Rostov-on-Don, 2001.
Additional literature:
1. Finding your way: Russia between Europe and Asia / Comp. N.G. Fedorovsky. Part 1, 2. Moscow, 1994.
2. History / ed. Shapovalova V.D. Rostov-on-Don, 2000.
3. Ionov I.N. Russian civilization of the 9th – early 20th centuries. Saratov, 2002.
4. Skvortsova E.M. Theory and history of culture. M., 1999.
To answer the first question students need to know the definition of historical consciousness and be able to identify its structural components (individual and collective, everyday and theoretical levels). The content of the story is historical process, that is, the life of humanity in its development and results. Understanding the historical process constitutes the content of historical consciousness, i.e. historical consciousness- is a set of ideas of society as a whole and its social groups separately about your past and the past of all humanity, understanding the past, its connection with the present and future. Mass (group) historical consciousness represents a way for society to reproduce and evaluate its movement in time. Individual- is the result of the individual’s familiarization with knowledge of the past and its comprehension, as well as the formation of a sense of belonging with it.
It is also necessary to show the relationship between historical consciousness and the worldview of a historical era, to reveal the features of such types of historical consciousness as national, cultural, etc. Society as a whole is interested in creating an objective view of its past. Historical consciousness acts as a factor of social stability, uniting groups and individuals on the basis of awareness of a common historical destiny. At the same time, every era, nation, group strives to find its heroes, values, and behavior patterns in the past. This is how a change in historical consciousness occurs.
Levels of historical consciousness distinguished depending on the depth, systematicity and emotionality of understanding the events of the past. Four levels can be noted:
· understanding of events in which the individual was directly a witness or participant;
· understanding events through familiarity with works of art in which they are reflected;
· studying and understanding the past in history lessons at school;
· understanding the laws of the historical process (science).
Next, we should characterize the first forms of historical consciousness: mythological and religious, and show their specific features. Historical myth- a fictional image that replaces historical reality in the mind. Its features: syncretism (fusion) of historical ideas, when two times are simultaneously thought of: divine (sacred) and real, and the idea of cyclical development, repetition of the past, immutability of the world. Religious historical consciousness is associated with the establishment of Christianity. Its features: chronicle, providentialism, idealization. As a conclusion, answer the question: How does historical consciousness shape personality and contribute to a person’s self-orientation in the world?
By revising second question students are advised to name the main features of modern (scientific) historical consciousness (historicism, objectivity, determinism), to know the definition of the concepts “Eurocentrism”, “monism”, “modernization”, as well as the interpretation of the concepts of “civilization” and “culture”, characteristic of science XVIII - XIX centuries
The emergence of scientific historical consciousness was caused by the development of society's need for self-awareness in connection with the profound socio-economic changes of the 18th – 19th centuries. The desire to understand the logic of the historical process led to the emergence of history as a science of the past, turning to the real facts of the past and searching for their true causes. A feature of scientific consciousness has become historicism, i.e. consideration of events in development, in their connection with other historical phenomena and taking into account specific conditions this stage development, as well as determinism, explanation of events by a sequence of cause-and-effect relationships. Formed monistic approach to understanding the historical process. According to him world history represents a single and natural process of development of humanity as a single whole. All peoples go through the same stages of development. In this case, as a rule, the technical and economic level is taken as the main criterion for development, and the model is European countries ("Eurocentrism"). In the 19th century monistic views on history are presented in the philosophy of G. Hegel, O. Comte and K. Marx. In the 20th century these are the theories of “closed” and “open” societies by K. Popper, “stages of economic growth” by W. Rostow, “post-industrial society” by D. Bell and O. Toffler.
When analyzing monistic models of the historical process, it is proposed using the example theories of socio-economic formations K. Marx or theories of “post-industrial society” D. Bell to identify the features of such an understanding of history (one criterion for the development of society, the predominant experience of Europe, etc.). It should be noted that Marx introduces the concept of socio-economic formation as the unity of the economy and politics of society, with the leading role of the economy. The development of formations is determined by the method of production of material life, consisting of productive forces, i.e. resources supporting the production process, and production relations, i.e. various forms ownership of the means of production. The method of production (basis) is decisive in relation to other spheres of society (politics, social and spiritual life). He believed that changes in the economy entail a change in the entire system of relations in society, a transition from one socio-economic formation to another. He identified five main formations in the history of mankind: primitive communal; slaveholding; feudal; capitalist; communist.
As a conclusion, students are asked to evaluate the positive and negative sides monistic approach.
When answering the third question, students are asked to identify the essential features of a special understanding of history in Modern Time using such concepts as “pluralism”, “tolerance”; as well as a new meaning of the concepts of “civilization” and “culture”. Formulate an idea of a pluralistic (multidimensional) understanding of history and features civilizational approach to history, which began to dominate historical research from the second half of the twentieth century.
The civilizational approach is universal. Its principles are applicable to the history of any country, group of countries, because history seems to be a multilinear, multivariate process. In addition, the history of a people is considered not in itself, but in comparison with the history of other peoples and civilizations, which makes it possible to better understand historical processes and their features. This approach helps to identify the intrinsic value of society, its place in world history and culture.
In modern understanding civilization- this is the totality of all (technical, cultural, spiritual, artistic) achievements in society that are the result of human activity. The uniqueness of each civilization is determined by a combination of many factors: geographic (or natural) environment; farming system, social organization, religion (spiritual values), political system, mentality, cultural archetype.
Students are asked to characterize the main concepts: from the founders (N.Ya. Danilevsky, K. Jaspers, A. Toynbee) to contemporaries (I. Wallerstein, etc.).
According to the theory of N. Ya. Danilevsky (1822 - 1885), civilization is a special cultural and historical type, the basis of which can be cultural, religious, political or socio-economic activity. The primary civilizations (Egyptian, Babylonian, Chinese, Indian and Iranian) had no foundations. The Jewish, Greek and Roman civilizations that replaced them were single-basic, the European (German-Roman) was two-basic, and the Slavic was the first four-basic, most developed civilization in history. In total, Danilevsky identified 13 cultural and historical types. He formulated the laws of their development: language, political independence, the uniqueness of civilization, their flourishing within the framework of a federation or political system states The fifth law states: the course of development of civilization is similar to the growth of a perennial single-fruited plant, i.e. after an indefinitely long development, a short period of flowering and fruiting begins, after which it inevitably dies.
Arnold Toynbee (1889-1975) defined civilization as a special society, the basis of which is religion. Civilization arises as a result of the search for adequate “Answers” to “Challenges” that come from nature (drought) or people (war). He identified about twenty such societies, emphasizing that in the 20th century. There are five of them: Western Catholic, Eastern Byzantine-Orthodox, Islamic, Hindu and Far Eastern. The rest died, but not because they went their way to the end, but because they violated the laws of development. Toynbee considered the main ones to be the law of continuous motion, as well as the law of constancy and unidirectionality of motion.
Speaking about modern theories, it is worth mentioning the concept of world-economy developed by I. Wallerstein. He views history as the development of various regional world-systems (world-economies and world-empires), which for a long time competed with each other until the European (capitalist) world-economy became absolutely dominant.
Attention should be paid to the peculiarities of the civilizational types of the West and the East. Today there are two main types of civilizations: Western European, technological And eastern , traditional. Western European developed on the basis of the states of Western Europe and was based on ancient Roman and Greek culture. It is characterized by private ownership of land, fast development commodity-money market relations, high level industrial development. The activities of this type of civilization are based on human rationalism, and the basis of the creed is God the man, Christ, the savior and transformer. In the sphere of relations between society and the surrounding reality lies the principle of active transformative human activity.
Eastern developed on the basis of culture Ancient India and China, Babylon, Ancient Egypt and states of the Muslim East. Her characteristic features are the social nature of land use, man’s admiration for nature, which is more contemplative than transformative in nature, and reverence for the traditions of the past. The basis of most Eastern religions is the deification of nature, the secondary role of man in relation to nature, activities aimed more at the moral self-purification of man rather than at transforming the surrounding reality.
Thus, by studying the history of any country, we can highlight the individual features of its existence as a local civilization, comprehend the general and special development trends in comparison with Western and eastern civilizations and draw a conclusion about its place in world civilization. This also applies to the study of Russian history. We will consider the history of Russia as the history of a unique civilization that has experienced a number of changes during its existence, and will use a periodization of the history of Russia, which reflects the key changes that occurred with the ethnic group.
Express your attitude to the problem by answering the questions: Is a dialogue of civilizations possible? Does world history exist?
Fourth question is devoted to the problem of periodization of Russian history. Speaking about periodization, it should be noted that there are several various schemes highlighting periods in the history of our country, depending on the methodology used by the researcher. V.N. Tatishchev was the first to propose a periodization of the history of Russia, from the point of view of the development of the state: 1) “perfect autocracy” (862-1132); 2) “aristocracy, but disorderly” (1132-1462); 3) “restoration of autocracy” (from 1462). According to N.M. Karamzin, it was divided into the Ancient (from Rurik to Ivan III), the characteristic feature of which was the system of appanages, the Middle (from Ivan III to Peter I) with autocracy, and the New (from Peter I to Alexander I), when Civil customs changed. According to V.O. Klyuchevsky: 1) VIII - XIII centuries. Rus' Dnieper, city, trade; 2) XIII - pp. XV centuries. - Upper Volga Rus', appanage-princely, free-agricultural; 3) Tue. item XV - beginning XVII centuries - this is Great Rus', Moscow, Tsarist-boyar, military-agricultural; 4) XVII century. – 1860s “new period” of Russian history, all-Russian, imperial-noble, period of serfdom. In Soviet historiography, a formational approach was adopted, according to which they distinguished: 1) primitive communal system (until the 9th century); 2) feudalism (IX - mid-XIX centuries); 3) capitalism (second half of the 19th century - 1917); 4) socialism (since 1917).
When studying the history of Russia, we will use a periodization based on a civilizational approach, identifying several subcivilizations (stages) that differ in their characteristic features. Their change occurred as a result of a “civilizational shift,” a crisis during which a unique choice of a further path of development occurred.
1. Old Russian civilization, pre-state period (until the 9th century)
2. Kievan Rus(862 – 1132)
3. “Apartment Rus'”, the period of feudal fragmentation (XII – XIV centuries)
4. Muscovite Rus' (XV – XVII centuries)
5. Imperial Russia (XVIII – early XX centuries)
6. Soviet Russia– USSR (1917-1991)
7. New Russia(1992 to present)
Talking about factors of Russia's identity, students should identify the mental principles of the Russian people that influenced the historical development of Russia (collectivism, a strong state principle, etc.), as well as the factors that contributed to their formation. It should be noted that many researchers note the enormous role of the state in Russian history, a small amount of economic freedom among the population, collectivism. Usually there are 4 factors that have shaped this model of development of our country: natural-climatic, geopolitical, religious and the factor of social organization. Under their influence, numerous differences are observed in the development of Russia in comparison with the history of Europe. So, for example, the historical process in Russia has a cyclical nature: reforms - counter-reforms - “turmoil” - strengthening of the state.
Answering to the last question of the topic,Russia's place in the world civilization process, it is necessary to trace the historical path that the Russian state has passed. Russia occupies a special place in world history. Located in Europe and Asia, it has largely absorbed the characteristics of the countries of these regions, however, it must be borne in mind that its history is independent. It cannot be denied that the countries of Europe and Asia have experienced the influence of Russia, because the historical process is interconnected and interdependent. Each country has its own history, which distinguishes it from the history of other countries.
At the same time, it is necessary to reveal the main points of view on the question of Russia’s place in world civilization: between the West and the East (“Slavophilism”, “Westernism”, “Eurasianism”), in the modern world. Particular attention should be paid to the analysis of such concepts:
1. Russia is part of Western civilization. This position was developed in the 30s and 40s. XIX century Russian historians and writers K.D. Kavelin, N.G. Chernyshevsky, B.I. Chicherin and others, who were called “Westerners”. They believed that Russia, in its culture, economic ties, and Christian religion, lies closer to the West than to the East, and should strive for rapprochement with the West. The period of Peter's reforms took a significant step in this direction.
2. Russia is part of Eastern civilization. This point of view is expressed by many Western historians. A. Toynbee considered Russian civilization to be a derivative (daughter) of the Byzantine one. American historian D. Tredgold notes the features of Eastern society in Russia: the concentration of power in one center; the rights and property of different social groups are determined central government; a weakly expressed principle of property, which is always conditional and not guaranteed by the authorities; arbitrariness, the essence of which is that man rules, and not the law.
3. Russia is the bearer of a unique Slavic civilization. Historians and scientists N. Kireevsky, S. Khomyakov, K. Aksakov, Yu. Samarin, called “Slavophiles”, in the 40s. In the 19th century, when Russia stood on the threshold of reforms, they defended the originality and “Slavic character” of the Russian people. Slavophiles considered Orthodoxy, communal life, the collectivist nature of labor, and the integrity (non-division) of power to be features of Russian history.
4. Russia is an example of a special Eurasian civilization.(P. A. Karsavin, I. S. Trubetskoy, G. V. Florovsky, etc.). Proponents of this theory relied on geographical position Russia, its multinational character and many common features both eastern and western civilizations, manifested in Russian society. Russia represents special type civilization (“Eurasian”), which differs from both the West and the East. Russia occupies the middle space of Asia and Europe, which left its mark on the history of Russia and contributed to the creation of a unique cultural world. The Russian ethnos was formed not only on the basis of the Slavic ethnos, but under the strong influence of the Turkic and Finno-Ugric tribes, which led to a unique formation - a single multinational nation. The uniqueness of Russian culture was emphasized, the essence of which was determined by the ideas of conciliarity and religiosity. Eurasians idealized and absolutized the role of the state in public life. The state acted as the supreme master of society, possessing strong power, but at the same time maintaining a connection with the people.
To summarize, to answer the question: Why is thinking about the identity of Russia a central theme of Russian social thought?
Control questions
Historical consciousness, its essence, forms and functions.
In the course of studying history, historical consciousness is formed. Historical consciousness is one of the important aspects of social consciousness. Historical consciousness in science is understood as the totality of ideas of society as a whole and its social groups separately, about its past and the past of all humanity.
Each national and social community has a certain range of historical ideas about its origin, the most important events in its history, figures of the past, the relationship of its history with the history of other peoples and the entire human society. Such ideas are expressed primarily in all kinds of historical traditions, tales, legends, fairy tales, which form an integral part of the spiritual life of every people as one of the ways of their self-expression and self-affirmation. Thanks to this, this community of people recognizes itself as a people on the basis of knowledge of its past, on the basis of knowledge of its place in the world historical process. Thus, history is organically woven into public consciousness. All its elements, which together make up the consciousness of society (views, ideas, political and legal consciousness, morality, religion, art, science), have their own history. They can be understood and cognized only on the basis of a historical approach that considers each phenomenon from the point of view of the specific conditions and circumstances of its occurrence, the conditions of development. Thus, an inextricable connection and continuity of the past and present is obtained.
By mastering the experience of their ancestors in the field of work, political and social relations, subsequent generations learn to analyze the past and evaluate the present, to make decisions for self-realization. Through understanding historical experience, an understanding of the present is gained.
Like any other forms of social consciousness, historical consciousness has a complex structure. Four levels can be distinguished.
The first (lowest) level of historical consciousness is formed in the same ways as everyday consciousness, based on the accumulation of direct life experience, when a person observes certain events throughout his life, or even takes part in them. The broad masses of the population, as carriers of everyday consciousness at the lowest level of historical consciousness, are not able to bring it into the system, to evaluate it from the point of view of the entire course of the historical process. Most often it appears in vague, emotionally charged memories, often incomplete, inaccurate, and subjective. Thus, an ordinary soldier who participated in the Great Patriotic War could not imagine the full scale of this event and assess it. This can only be done by historians based on a generalization of the entire set of facts and events. However, in the minds of ordinary soldiers, the entire mass ordinary people The main conclusion was: “we won.”
The next stage of historical consciousness can be formed under the influence of fiction, cinema, radio, television, theater, painting, and under the influence of acquaintance with historical monuments. At this level, historical consciousness also has not yet transformed into systematic knowledge. The ideas that form it are still fragmentary, chaotic, and not chronologically ordered. They, as a rule, are distinguished by their brightness, great emotionality, and the impressions of what they saw or heard sometimes last a lifetime. For example, a picture of Ivan the Terrible makes an impression on a person. Repin "Ivan the Terrible and his son Ivan." And although many essential moments of the historical process remain, so to speak, behind the scenes, the reader (viewer) judges the era precisely by this work of art.
The third stage of historical consciousness is formed on the basis of historical knowledge itself, acquired in history lessons at school, where students first receive ideas about the past in a systematized form. Unfortunately, by the end of school, students have little memory of where they started.
It is possible to expand knowledge of history at an amateur level, but this kind of personal interest does not manifest itself so often, and there are few suitable popular books on Russian history. A deep study of national history contributes to the education of youth in the spirit of citizenship and patriotism.
At the fourth (highest) stage, the formation of historical consciousness occurs on the basis of a comprehensive theoretical understanding of the past, at the level of identifying trends in historical development. Based on the knowledge about the past accumulated by history, generalized historical experience, a scientific worldview is formed, attempts are made to obtain a more or less clear understanding of the nature and driving forces of the development of human society, its periodization, the meaning of history, typology, and models of social development. At this level of historical consciousness, attempts are made to explain the human past in all its inconsistency and complexity, both at the concrete historical and at the theoretical levels.
Thus, historical knowledge as an element of social consciousness, constituting the spiritual side of the historical process, must be perceived systematically, in all its stages and levels, since without a systematic approach the idea of historical consciousness will be incomplete.
The importance of forming historical consciousness and preserving historical memory in modern conditions is very great. First of all, it ensures that a certain community of people understands the fact that they constitute a single people, united by a common historical destiny, traditions, culture, language, and common psychological traits. At the most diverse stages of their development, tribes, peoples, nations sought to preserve the memory of their past in a variety of forms: from oral traditions and heroic epics, when there was no written language, to all kinds of written narratives, works of art, scientific works, monuments of fine art. This contributed to the self-affirmation of this community of people as a people.
The centuries-old history of mankind and the history of the 20th century, among other things, testify that national-historical consciousness is a defensive factor that ensures the self-preservation of the people. If it is destroyed, then this people will be left not only without a past, without its historical roots, but also without a future.
Historical consciousness - memory of the past and interest in it - is characteristic to one degree or another of all people and nations. At the same time, the very attitude towards the past and the methods of obtaining information about it are extremely diverse, which allows us to talk about the existence of different types of historical consciousness. The main difference between them is determined by two factors: firstly, different proportions of emotional and rational attitudes towards the past; secondly, the degree of reliability of the picture that is recreated on the basis of individual historical evidence.
The composition of historical memory largely depends on subjective and emotional aspects: the community, willingly or unwillingly, turns to the past as a source of information. The mass consciousness perceives the past emotionally, seeks in it confirmation of its own expectations and preferences, and easily blurs the boundaries between reliable and fictitious pictures of events. Social, or cultural, memory indicates the inextricable connection of generations and provides examples of experience that can be used in the present. The basis of scientific historical consciousness is the recognition of the difference between the past and the present, the requirement for the reliability of information on the basis of which the past can be restored, and constant doubts as to the extent to which historical phenomena can be compared with the facts of modern life. History as the experience of social life, without which modern society cannot understand itself and determine the path of development, is critically assessed by science from the point of view of the ways and possibilities of applying this experience.
Mass, or uncritical, historical consciousness is characterized by three features: modernization of the past; a retrospective approach to the past, which in this context is of interest only from the point of view of the origin of modern phenomena of social life; free use of fiction and imagination to reconstruct a holistic image of the past.
Mass consciousness is looking for examples in the past to emulate or condemn. This means that history is perceived as a kind of illustration of the ethical preferences of a particular era. Historical characters are portrayed as examples of social behavior, they are attributed qualities and motives that members of a particular community consider to be determinative of their own behavior.
Let's consider an example from European medieval history. In the 12th century in Germany (the lands that are part of the modern Germanic tribes of the era of the Great Migration of Peoples, barbarian kingdoms, medieval states and monarchies of the late Middle Ages were perceived not as special ways of integrating society, each of which was characterized by individual forms of ethnic consciousness and political organization, but simply as stages of national and state unity. The wars of the Middle Ages were attributed to the same reasons as the conflicts of modern times: the struggle of national states for their interests.
Another example of the search for the historical roots of modernity is the desire to find in the past the prerequisites for current democracy: the structure of ancient city-polises, the Roman Republic, medieval commune cities, and the class organization of medieval knighthood were considered as such. All these heterogeneous phenomena belonging to different eras were attributed such qualities as the principles of freedom and equality of community members, the cultivation of institutions of collective and public acceptance major decisions. In modern Russia, the turn to the ideology of democracy and a free society is reflected in the desire to find similar traditions in its own history: the Novgorod Veche is quite seriously mentioned as an example of ancient political democracy.
It is noteworthy that in the modern world, any community or social movement seeks to discover its “historical ancestors”: for example, the feminist movement aims, on the one hand, to find examples of the significant and special role of women in history, and on the other, to declare the moral injustice of the total domination of men in the social and political life of previous eras. Ideologists of national movements, the struggle of ethnic minorities for rights or political freedom, use as an argument the fact that in the distant past the corresponding rights or freedoms of the people were taken away as a result of the unjust actions of another people or state. In a word, history is turned to as an argument that justifies ideological, social, and political claims that are relevant to modern times. The latter are credited with moral validity and long-term existence. Such a prehistory of current ideas and aspirations is often constructed in a biased manner; the past is endowed with those features that it was essentially deprived of.
In addition, the past is interpreted unambiguously and biasedly. Thus, the idea of historical justice of the claims of a certain people to certain territories requires that facts confirming the historical rights of other peoples to these territories be removed from the evidence of the past. The perception of the past as a historical tradition that justifies the aspirations and claims of individual peoples or social groups is an irrational and often dangerous product of mass consciousness. It ignores the complexity of historical processes, and sometimes directly falsifies the connections between phenomena belonging to different eras, creating the illusion of antiquity and the indisputability of ideas generated by the modern situation.
However, it is also difficult for historian-researchers who adhere to the principles of objectivity and strive for an unbiased analysis of facts to clear their perception of the past from emotional overtones and abandon the interpretation of past events as direct predecessors of the present.
Can a historian be impartial? This question is fundamental to modern science, however, they were also asked by people of previous eras who were able to critically comprehend the ambiguity of the past and knowledge about it. The historian never receives the material for his research in ready-made form: the facts contained in the sources (witnesses of the past) must first be collected, and then analyzed and interpreted.
Both procedures, including the initial one associated with the selection of material, depend on what tasks the historian sets for himself. In modern historiography, the idea that, unlike specialists in the field of natural sciences, historians themselves create the material for their research has become widespread. This does not mean that they falsify or supplement data from sources with arbitrary judgments, but they are forced to select certain information from the entire variety of evidence.
The question of what comes first - the sources (factual material) or the intellectual scheme - turns out to be akin to the famous paradox of the chicken and the egg in the work of a historian. When starting research, a historian must have a preliminary hypothesis and a system of theoretical and conceptual ideas, since without them he will not be able to begin working with evidence of the past. At the stage of interpretation of selected and systematized data, the results of his work depend even more on scientific, ethical and moral preferences. In his attitude to the past, the historian cannot be guided only by the requirement of objective and impartial analysis and is not able to completely subordinate his perception of historical reality to the principle of historicism. Other eras and societies are interesting for the historian from the point of view of their comparison with his own time. Like any other person interested in history, like many generations of distant predecessors who knew nothing about the principles of science and historicism, he looks in the past for the origins of those values and forms of social life that are most significant in his contemporary society. In history the researcher finds elements of social organization similar or different from those that are basic to his own era. Modernity remains the ideal model from which the historian starts in interpreting the past.
Can, for example, a modern historian who shares the values of democracy and individual freedom be impartial in the study of the social and political life of antiquity? Could the characteristics he gave to the polis democracy of ancient Greece and the despotic monarchies of the East be a simple statement of the existence of different forms of statehood? Voluntarily or unwittingly, he sees in the ancient world features of an organization of social life that is close and significant to him, and therefore considers antiquity as the predecessor of modern society and at the same time perceives Eastern traditions as a truly alien path of development, deviating from the normal one. Unlike the average person, a researcher can consciously distance himself from such an emotional and value perception of the past. However, he is not able to free himself from it completely.
The moral and political bias of the historian is revealed even more clearly when studying the recent past, live connection which modern society has not yet lost touch with. The study of the history of the Third Reich or the Soviet period of national history can be carried out in different directions, but general judgments, as a rule, reflect the ideological preferences of the researcher. The most in-depth analysis of the objective and underlying causes that gave rise to fascism or Stalinism largely removes the burden of moral responsibility from the people who lived under these regimes and supported them, but is not able to deprive the researcher of the right to characterize them as tragic periods of national and world history. The assessment may also be dictated by real political and ideological conditions. In Hitler's Germany, historians who shared the ideology of National Socialism consistently sought and discovered in the past confirmation of the primordial national superiority of the German peoples and the Germans as a special nation. Soviet historians, following the ideology of the exceptional significance of the revolutionary struggle, found in Russian history the direct predecessors of the ruling regime. These were popular uprisings and peasant wars, Decembrists, populists, revolutionaries and terrorists - forces that personified social struggle and revolution. At the same time, the ideology of a totalitarian state, whose task is to fight internal enemies, required a new historical genealogy for the Soviet government. Monarchs distinguished by cruelty and despotism were put forward as predecessors and role models - Ivan the Terrible and Peter I, who were Stalin's favorite historical characters.
In general, it is possible to identify three groups of factors that have a socio-cultural conditionality and determine the historian’s attitude to the past: scientific concepts of social development, which guide the researcher in the selection, analysis and interpretation of historical facts; political and ideological principles of the structure of society, which the researcher perceives as a starting point in his perception of the past; personal worldview and ideological beliefs of the researcher.
Thus, the historian is engaged by his time and cannot be free from social ideas and political ideologies. Historical science, like mass consciousness, creates its own myths about the past and uses it to confirm certain current ideas. However, the integrity and professional integrity of the historian require a refusal to directly identify the past and the present. The historian balances on the brink of objectivity and partiality, but only he can put a barrier to the use of the past as material for political ideologies and false social myths.
