The main trends in the development of historical science in the second half of the twentieth century. Main trends in historical development Questions for tests and exams

Social progress - ascent to more complex forms of social life; a change in social relations leading to increased social freedom and social justice.

The idea that changes in the world are occurring in a certain direction arose in ancient times and was initially purely evaluative. In the development of pre-capitalist formations, the diversity and severity of political events were combined with an extremely slow change in the socio-economic foundations of social life. For most ancient authors, history is a simple sequence of events behind which there is something unchangeable; in general, it is depicted either as a regressive process descending from the ancient “golden age” (Hesiod, Seneca), or as a cyclical cycle repeating the same stages (Plato, Aristotle, Polybius). Christian historiosophy views history as a process moving in a certain direction, as a movement towards a certain pre-established goal that lies outside the framework of actual history. The idea of ​​historical progress was not born from Christian eschatology, but from its denial.

The social philosophy of the rising bourgeoisie, reflecting the real acceleration of social development, was filled with optimism, the confidence that the “kingdom of reason” lies not in the past, but in the future. First of all, progress was noticed in the field of scientific knowledge: F. Bacon and R. Descartes already taught that there is no need to look back to the ancients, that scientific knowledge of the world is moving forward. Then the idea of ​​progress extends to the sphere of social relations (Turgot, Condorcet).

Enlightenment theories of progress substantiated the breakdown of feudal

relations, on their basis numerous systems of utopian socialism were formed. But historicism was alien to the rationalistic theories of progress. The progress of society in the theories of the Enlightenment was teleological in nature; they elevated the transitory ideals and illusions of the bourgeoisie to the rank of the ultimate goal of history. At the same time, Vico and especially Rousseau already pointed out the contradictory nature of historical development. Romantic historiography of the early 19th century, in contrast to the rationalism of the Enlightenment, put forward the idea of ​​slow organic evolution, not allowing outside interference, and the thesis of the individuality and incomparability of historical eras. However, this historicism was one-sidedly turned to the past and often acted as an apology for archaic relations. Hegel gave a deeper interpretation of progress, speaking out both against the Enlightenment’s neglect of the past and against the false historicism of the romantic “historical school.” However, understanding historical progress as the self-development of the world spirit, Hegel could not explain the transition from one stage of social development to another. His philosophy of history turns into a theodicy, the justification of God in history.

Dialectical materialism has developed a fundamentally different approach to this problem, put forward and justified an objective criterion of progress. Progress is not some independent essence or transcendental goal of historical development. The concept of progress makes sense only in relation to a specific historical process or phenomenon in a strictly defined frame of reference. The goals, aspirations and ideals in the light of which people evaluate historical development themselves change in the course of history, so such assessments often suffer from subjectivity and ahistoricity. The general trend of historical development is the transition from systems with a predominance of natural determination to systems with a predominance of socio-historical determination, which is based on the development of productive forces. A higher level of development of productive forces corresponds to more complex forms of production relations and social organization as a whole, and an increased role of the subjective factor. The degree of mastery by society of the spontaneous forces of nature, expressed in the growth of labor productivity, and the degree of liberation of people from the oppression of spontaneous social forces, socio-political inequality and spiritual underdevelopment - these are the most general criteria of historical progress. In the light of this criterion, socio-economic formations represent natural stages in the progressive development of humanity. But this process is contradictory, and its types and pace are different. Hence the growth of social pessimism, numerous philosophical and sociological theories of the twentieth century,

directly or indirectly denying progress and proposing to replace it

the concept of either the ideas of cyclical circulation (Spengler, Toynbee, Sorokin), or the “neutral” concept of “social change”. Wide

Various concepts of the “end of history” are also becoming widespread.

and pessimistic dystopias. In the same spirit they interpret

many global problems of our time - environmental, demographic, food, energy, raw materials, threat

nuclear war, maintaining mental and physiological health

population.

In conclusion, we note that the application of social criteria

progress in the study of the development of society should be comprehensive and not in relation to the economic, social, political or spiritual spheres of society, but as a whole, i.e. all spheres are considered as parts of a single whole, as subsystems of a single social system that has its own history.

Control questions:

1. What is social progress?

2. Hegel’s interpretation of progress?

3. General trend of historical development?

4. General criteria of historical progress?

5. What nature should the application of criteria of social progress have?

The main political, social, historical and epistemological trends of the era that influenced the development of historical science. Cliometric positivism (P. Chaunu, F. Furet). Development of logical positivism by K. Popper. Interpretation of the Marxist methodology of history by R. Aron. Post-war development of the “Annals School” and the identification of various directions from it. Influence on the methodology of the history of narratology and philological sciences. Development of social and economic history. History of culture and methodology of history. "New Intellectual History".

Civilizational approach to history (O. Spengler and A. Toynbee). Basic methodological principles of the civilizational approach to history. “The Decline of Europe” by O. Spengler. The concept of “morphology of world history”. Tables of “comparative morphology of world history.” Historical works of A. Toynbee. Scheme of the history of civilizations according to A. Toynbee. Genesis of civilizations according to A. Toynbee. The theory of “call and response”, “exit and return” The concepts of “split of civilizations” and “universal states”.

History of the origin and basic principles of the “New Historical Science”. M. Blok and L. Febr. Magazine "Annals". What did the representatives of the “new historical science” criticize? Basic principles of the “new historical science”. Concepts of historical synthesis, total history, temporal structure, macrohistorical and microhistorical approaches, multidisciplinary approach and interdisciplinary synthesis. Dialogue of cultures. Mentality.

"New historical science". Mark Block. M. Blok’s ideas about the place of history in humanitarian culture. Features of historical observation according to M. Blok. Types of historical evidence. Difference between documentary and narrative sources. M. Blok’s assessment of the method of “skeptical” attitude towards sources. Two types of deception in sources. M. Blok on historical terminology. Basic principles of M. Blok's critical method.

Historical anthropology. Main directions of development in the twentieth century. Basic methodological principles of historical anthropology. The concept of otherness and dialogue of cultures. The concept of mentality. Works of the classics of historical anthropology: F. Ariès, R. Darnton, J. Duby, F. Braudel, D. Levy. What is the “anthropological dimension” of history? The concept of “dense description” by K. Geertz. The influence of social anthropology on historical anthropology (C. Lévi-Strauss).

Historical anthropology. J. Le Goff. Le Goff's assessments of political history. What are the new approaches? Le Goff's suggestions for the study of political history? The book “The Civilization of the Medieval West”: Design, methodological principles, advantages and disadvantages of the approach. How does Le Goff propose to study mentality?

Historical anthropology. F. Braudel. The main works of F. Braudel. Main features of Braudel's structuralist method. What is Braudel's object of study? What is meant by “material life”? What is meant by “structures of everyday life”? The concept of “world-economy”.

History of private life and development paths of this scientific direction. The emergence of the history of private life as a special direction. The most famous works on the history of private life. Basic methodological principles of this scientific direction. Demographic behavior as an object of research.

Basic principles of the microhistorical approach. The emergence of microhistory. Basic principles of the microhistorical approach. K. Ginzburg. J. Levy. B. Haupert and F. Schafer. N.Z. Davis. Advantages and disadvantages of the microhistorical approach.

Microhistory. Carlo Ginzburg. How does Ginzburg formulate the research problems facing proponents of the microhistorical approach? How does he propose to solve them? K. Ginzburg’s book “Cheese and Worms”: content, methodological principles, advantages and disadvantages.

Postmodern challenge and historical science. What is postmodernism? The idea of ​​history as an explanatory system, a metastory. Basic principles of postmodernist criticism of historical science. H. White. Postmodernists’ interpretation of history as an “operation of verbal fiction.” “Linguistic turn” (A. Danto). Development and rethinking of H. White's theory in the works of F. Ankersmit.

Reasons for rethinking the place and principles of historical knowledge in the second half of the twentieth century. Historical reasons. Political reasons. Epistemological reasons. Understanding history as a special “cultural practice”. The concept of postmodernism (J. Lyotard). The cognitive revolution and its impact on humanities. Development of philological sciences and their influence on humanities.

How did historical science respond to the postmodern challenge? Techniques and methods of denial of postmodernism by supporters of the positivist approach. The current state of historical postmodernism. “The third direction” in the criticism of historical postmodernism (L. Stone, R. Chartier, J. Iggers, G. Spigel, P. Bourdieu). Possible ways to criticize the postmodern approach to history.

"Postmodern challenge". Hayden White. "Metahistory" by H. White. The concept of tropology. Denotative and connotative signification. Metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche and irony. History and poetics. Verification. How does White define the principles of constructing a historical narrative? Explanation through plotting. Romance, Tragedy, Comedy and Satire. Explanation through evidence. Modes of Formism, Organicism, Mechanism and Contextualism Explanation through ideological subtext. Tactics of Anarchism, Conservatism, Radicalism and Liberalism.

Historical hermeneutics: History of origin. What is hermeneutics? Concepts of interpretation and understanding. Hermeneutics in ancient and medieval science. The emergence of historical hermeneutics. Y.M. Cladenius. G.F. Mayer.

Historical hermeneutics. Friedrich Schleiermacher. Wilhelm Dilthey, Hermeneutics as the “universal art of understanding” by F. Schleiermacher. The scientific and creative act of the author of the work. Comparative and divinatory methods of understanding. Hermeneutics and psychological interpretation. The principle of congeniality of V. Dilthey.

Historical hermeneutics. Martin Heidegger. Hans Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, The concept of the hermeneutic circle in M. Hadegger. “Sketching meaning”, pre-concepts and the problem of interpretation. Understanding and interpretation in G. Gadamer and P. Ricoeur.

Application of the method of historical hermeneutics I.N. Danilevsky.

The concepts of centon and bricolage. The method of stable semantic keys by R. Picchio and the centon-paraphrase method by I.N. Danilevsky. Genetic criticism of the source and the problem of interpretation. Advantages and disadvantages of the method.

Semiotics and history. Basic principles of semiotics. The concept of semiotics. What and how does semiotics study? Concept of a sign. Signifiers and signified signs. Figurative signs, indices and diagrams. The concept of signification. The process of semiosis. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations between signs. Synchrony and Diachrony. Paradigmatics and syntagmatics.

Development of semiotics in the twentieth century. Classics of semiotics: C. Pierce, F. De Saussure, C. Morris, R. Barth. Moscow and Prague linguistic circles. Identification of different directions in semiotics: linguistic semiotics, semiotics in literary criticism, semiotics of art, logical semiotics, psychological semiotics, social semiotics, visual semiotics, historical semiotics.

Semiotics in Russia. Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman. The emergence of the Moscow-Tartu semiotic school. Yu.M. Lotman, B.A. Uspensky, B.M. Gasparov: main works and ideas. Concept of the text by Yu.M. Lotman. The concept of semiosphere. Theory of the poetic word M.M. Bakhtin. "Proceedings on sign systems." Features of the cultural-semiotic approach to history.

The concept of historical memory and its development in the works of French researchers. The relationship between the concepts of history and memory. Project of “places of memory”: structure, principles of construction, advantages and disadvantages.

The theory of “places of historical memory” by P. Nora. The concept of “place of memory”. Examples of “places of memory” from the French project. The possibility of applying this technique to Russian history.

Theories of nations and nationalism in the twentieth century. B. Anderson. “Imaginary Communities” by B. Anderson: structure and main ideas of the book. Why does B. Anderson define nations as “imagined communities”? How does he interpret the origins of nationalism? Concepts of symbols and memory of the nation. Nation Building Toolkit according to B. Anderson.

Theories of nations and nationalism in the twentieth century. Hans Kohn. G. Kohn's interpretation of the nation as a “historical and political concept.” The concept of the origin of nationalism by G. Kohn. Ways of forming nations according to G. Kohn.

Edward Said and his analysis of “Orientalism” as a way for the West to assimilate a foreign culture. The concept of orientalism. Techniques and methods by which the West identifies the East. The concept of imaginative geography – using the example of Orientalism. The methods by which Orientalism opened the East to the West. The image of the “White Man” as a colonial style of the West’s relationship to the East. The current state of Orientalism.

Models of reading one culture by another using the example of Larry Wolf's research. Principles of “discovery” of another world according to L. Wolf. Cultural stereotypes and myths used in this. Historical stereotypes and myths used in this case. The concept of “mental geography”. Possibilities of overcoming cultural stereotypes in historical writings.

Prosopography. The concept of prosopography. School of Elite Studies. School of Statistical Mass Studies. The concept of social mobility. Advantages and disadvantages of the prosopographic method.

Gender studies. The concept of gender. Joan Scott and her article: “Gender: a useful category of historical analysis.” Differences between the gender approach and historical feminology. Methodological principles of gender history. Gender studies and visual culture. Gender studies and the history of everyday life.

"New demographic science". Historical demography. The emergence of a “new demographic history.” Method of “restoring family history” by L. Henri. Statistical and mathematical methods and computer techniques used in historical demography. The concepts of population reproduction mode and type of population reproduction.

Questions for the test and exam:

1. Main trends in the development of historical science in the first half of the twentieth century.

2. Main trends in the development of historical science in the second half of the twentieth century.

3. Civilizational approach to history (O. Spengler and A. Toynbee).

4. History of the emergence and basic principles of the “New Historical Science”.

5. “New historical science.” Mark Block.

6. Historical anthropology. Main directions of development in the twentieth century.

7. Historical anthropology. J. Le Goff.

8. Historical anthropology. F. Braudel.

9. History of private life and development paths of this scientific direction.

10. Basic principles of the microhistorical approach.

11. Microhistory. Carlo Ginzburg.

12. Postmodern challenge and historical science.

13. Reasons for rethinking the place and principles of historical knowledge in the second half of the twentieth century.

14. How did historical science respond to the postmodern challenge?

15. "Postmodern challenge." Hayden White.

16. Historical hermeneutics: History of origin.

17. Historical hermeneutics. Wilhelm Dilthey, Friedrich Schleiermacher.

18. Historical hermeneutics. Hans Gadamer, Paul Ricoeur, Martin Heidegger.

19. Application of the method of historical hermeneutics by Igor Nikolaevich Danilevsky.

20. Semiotics and history. Basic principles of the semiotic approach in historical science.

21. Development of semiotics in the twentieth century.

22. Semiotics in Russia. "Moscow-Tartu School". Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman.

23. The concept of historical memory and its development in the works of French researchers.

24. The theory of “places of historical memory” Pierre Nora.

25. Theories of nations and nationalism in the twentieth century. Benedict Anderson.

26. Theories of nations and nationalism in the twentieth century. Hans Kohn.

27. Edward Said and his analysis of “Orientalism” as a way for the West to assimilate a foreign culture

28. Models of reading one culture by another using the example of Larry Wolf’s research

29. Prosopography.

30. Gender studies.

31. “New demographic science.”

FIRST QUESTION. SPECIFICITY OF FOREIGN HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE XX CENTURY.

SECOND QUESTION. MAIN TRENDS IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORICAL SCIENCE AT THE TURN OF THE XX – XXI CENTURIES.

FIRST QUESTION. In the twentieth century, there was a significant renewal of the principles of historicism, and a new image of man in history was formed. Experts described the transformation that began in the twentieth century as a historiographic revolution. These serious transformations began at the beginning of the twentieth century, but this trend reached its peak in the 1960-70s - the time of the formation and development of such a phenomenon, which was called the “New Historical Science”. These years marked a period of extreme scientism in historiography, a period of peak mathemization of historical science. This was the period of the dominance of structural history, a period of interest in mass phenomena to the detriment of individual groups and individuals, a period of extreme attention to the general to the detriment of the specific.

In general, the development of historical science and its increasing role in public life led to the formation after the Second World War of many scientific centers engaged in the development of historical issues. The number of historical societies increased, historical periodicals developed, and the circulation of history books, both specialized and popular science literature, increased. The number of history specialists graduating from universities grew.

International connections between professionals, inter-university exchanges, historical conferences, forums, round tables, and symposia developed, at which important issues were discussed. World congresses of historical sciences met every five years. And theoretical and methodological issues of world historiography were discussed on the pages of the international journal “History and Theory”.

Historical science could not help but feel the development of global processes that were taking place in society and in the world. These are scientific and technological revolution, the socio-political development of different countries, the Cold War, the collapse of colonial empires, etc. There are two periods in the development of historiography:

1) 1940-50s . With all the diversity of schools and trends in historiography, the ideographic direction, which is characterized by an attitude towards history as a science about individual phenomena, has acquired a special role. The influence of this methodology varied on the historiography of different countries, but the general trend was clear. The roots of this approach lie in the fact that at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. a number of European philosophers and sociologists criticized the positivist method. In particular, in Germany this criticism was made by representatives of the philosophy of life, Wilhelm Dilthey, as well as representatives of the German neo-Kantian school - Wilhelm Windelband and Heinrich Rickert. They drew attention to the special specificity of the humanities: it is impossible to eliminate the subjective factor in the process of cognition, and the results of such historical knowledge will always be relative.

Both Dilthey and representatives of the neo-Kantian school said that the historian is not able to objectively reflect the surrounding reality. “Any knowledge in history is devalued by its extreme subjectivity” - Dilthey. Neo-Kantians divided all sciences into two groups: some deal with the development of general laws, others with specific historical facts. The first are the sciences of laws, the second are the sciences of events (ideographic sciences). In contrast to natural science, in history, the events that occur do not have common characteristics, therefore, here it is possible to use only an individualizing method, and not to derive general laws from particular cases.

These approaches subsequently had a significant influence on historical thought. Theory was not connected with practice for a long time, only in the post-war years the situation changed, and a number of new philosophical schools played their role, including personalism and existentialism.

These relativistic tendencies began to appear in US historiography. They affected almost all the leading historiographers - in particular, one of the leading movements - the progressivism, including its main representative, Charles Austin Beard. He began to develop neo-Kantian views, but these changes led to his decline. The historiography of West Germany did not have to change much. In the first post-war decade, the generation of historians that emerged during the Weimar Republic continued to dominate here. And with them, traditional German historicism, closely related to the ideographic direction, continued to develop.

In Great Britain, its traditional imperialism and dislike for theorizing continued to prevail. A number of works devoted to the problems of historical knowledge appeared in Britain, where these approaches showed themselves. A detailed presentation of the relativistic approach to history was given by the Dutch-born historian Gustav Johannes Renier in the book “History, Its Goals and Methods,” where he emphasized the subjective factor in the selection of facts by researchers. A number of famous historians spoke in his support, including an important representative of science Isaiah B e rlyn and Geoffrey Barraclough.

In post-war France, relativistic tendencies did not spread. The decisive influence was exerted by the historians of the Annales school, who in the 1930s revised the methodology of positivist historiography in France. They still believed in the possibility of historical knowledge, in the objective nature of this process, and in the idea of ​​historical synthesis. After the Second World War, the general ideological attitude in historiography continued to change, in particular with regard to the ideas of progress. Reality itself demonstrated doubts about this. Two world wars, the formation of totalitarian regimes in Europe, the threat of a nuclear conflict - all this undermined faith in progress. But for a number of reasons, primarily because of the Cold War, which contributed to the ideologization of many areas of humanities, in the first post-war years a conservative war manifested itself in Foreign historiography.

In the United States, the conservative wave had broad and powerful representation. It was made possible by the decline of the Progressive school, as well as by the prominence of the theory of consensus, or theory of concerted interests, which was one of the first to formulate by the American historian Richard Hofstadter. In the USSR, this concept was positioned as the antithesis of the progressive movement. Representatives of this theory rejected the idea of ​​conflict as an important line of American history.

Instead, representatives of this movement were based on the idea that American history has a special feature - the coherence of the basic elements of American society on the basis of compromises. Not conflicts, not a struggle of ideas, but the idea of ​​compromise. On the right wing of this school were the largest representatives of American conservative historiography of the post-war years - Daniel Boorstin, Louis Harts, Robert Brown. They consistently came out with a rethinking of American history, paying special attention to the early colonial era, because. It was then that the foundations of the unity of the American nation were laid.

The main core of the conservative system of American history was the idea that social homogeneity and ideological unity were the defining elements of American society that lay at the basis of American statehood. They are traditional, and their growth occurred in the course of further historical development. And reforms are not the opposite, but their practical implementation.

In British historiography, a conservative wave took place where there was a negative attitude towards the English Revolution. A prominent historian was Lews Nemir. In the 1940s and early 1950s, there was a debate about the English revolution and the role of the Gentry in it, and in the course of it, the historian Hugh Trevor-Roper, who interpreted the role of the gentry in the English revolution from a conservative perspective, became very famous. The English nobility continued to remain conservative in their views.

A number of other historians have been engaged in uncounting changes in the economy. In addition, they discussed the circumstances and consequences of the industrial revolution in Great Britain.

Conservative positions were also evident in the historiography of Germany. Parts of Germany were held by communists who started the Cold War. The conservative movement relied on historians of the old school. German historians described their contribution to the struggle between West and East.

One of the extreme consequences of the reigning relativistic approach was presentism, from the English. "present tense". This concept means historians following changes in political course, historians’ opportunistic behavior. The relativistic approach provided additional arguments for this kind of approach. Since the past is given to us only for humble experience, then modernization of the past is inevitable. The presentists in this post-war decade put history in the service of the political moment.

In 1949 in the United States, the president of the American Historical Association, Conniece Reed, motivated the need for the subordination of historical interpretations to modern political tasks by the social responsibility of history.

2) 1960-80s . Serious changes began to occur in the historical science of the United States and other countries. A scientific and technological revolution begins in Western countries, which influenced significant changes in the economy and social sphere. Powerful democratic movements are developing in Western countries. At the same time, the theory of stages of economic growth, formulated by the American economist and sociologist Waltuitman Rostow, gained great popularity in historiography. In Europe, one of the most consistent supporters of his ideas was another economist, Raymond Aron.

In these conditions of a changing world, a neoliberal wave is reviving in Western countries, which also affects historiography. And neoliberalism of this period stood in the same positions as social liberalism at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries. Maintaining faith in liberal doctrines and principles regarding politics, but a slightly different approach to economics and social relations.

This trend has manifested itself very clearly in the USA. Among the leading representatives of the neoliberal trend is Arthur Schlesinger Jr. They viewed American history from the perspective of the growing triumph of liberal reformism, the main instrument of which was the state. Arthur Schlesinger formulated the concept of cycles of American history - the concept of alternating cycles of liberal reforms and periods of conservative consolidation in US history.

In addition, since the late 1950s, the historiography of European countries and the United States began to be influenced by economic and sociological theories - the theory of industrial society and the theory of modernization. In fact, both of them connected the historical path traversed by capitalism with the development of scientific and technological progress. In many ways they continued to develop Rostow's ideas. Following them, American scientists (Daniel Bell, Sbigniew Brzezinski) formed the concept of industrial society and divided human history into several stages:

Pre-industrial society;

Industrial society;

Post-industrial society.

Within the framework of modernization theory, the concept of industrial society was supplemented by factors of social, political and cultural development. In the changing new conditions, in connection with all processes, the shortcomings of ideographic historiography became obvious. The focus on studying exclusively political history also played a certain role. There was dissatisfaction with attempts to reduce a number of social factors, the history of mass movements, and social conflicts.

Under the direct influence of scientific and technological revolution, a process of scientization and optimization of history took place. The direction of New History was formed. Historians of this movement did not oppose history to the natural sciences; on the contrary, they believed in their cooperation. They advocated interdisciplinary research. The main line of updating historical science is the development of interdisciplinary methods: sociological research, methods of the exact sciences. This again led to a revival of epistemological optimism.

In search of new methods, theorists turned to structuralism, the ideas of which were developed by French scientists and were initially used in linguistics, and then were applied to other sciences. Proponents of structuralism saw the mission in eliminating subjectivism as much as possible from the process of cognition. Thus, they proposed to reduce this factor. It is necessary to properly select the object of research, as well as apply new methods in the process of cognition.

For this purpose, they identified a category of unconscious structures that are as free as possible from subjective aspects. They included economic relations, systems of customs and traditions, mythology, beliefs, etc. To eliminate the subjective element, they saw the introduction of many methods drawn from the natural sciences.

The main object of research was social structures, the study of socio-economic problems, mass phenomena, the internal state of society and its individual groups. An interdisciplinary approach and a quantitative method became important elements of the new method.

Quantitative or quantitative history appeared. In the beginning, quantitative history used traditional statistical techniques to confirm certain historical factors. Then the quantitative method began to be used in computer processing of sources. The researcher first built a theoretical model of a process—most often it concerned economic development. Then the statistical data was brought into a form suitable for computer processing, and then the correctness of the theoretical model was checked using a computer. At the same time, the range of sources adapted for research began to expand - population censuses, parish books, marriage contracts.

Thanks to computerization in the West, all office work has become computerized, and this data is no longer paper.

The new economic history has become a wide field for the application of quantitative methods. Within the framework of the new history, a number of new disciplines were formed. The new economic history, in which the main material is expressed in numbers, has become a large field for the application of quantitative methods. New methods also made it possible, on the basis of numerous new and serial sources, to build entire models of individual phenomena and confirm certain theoretical developments.

Another area of ​​application of quantitative analysis was the new political history, in which data from election campaigns began to be analyzed, voting was held in various bodies, the position of political parties was declared, and the electoral behavior of voters was studied. The new social history began to study social structures and social processes in society. It is richest in related research, and the emergence of subdisciplines within this history. There is a new labor history, a history of ethnic minorities, a history of women and gender history, a family history, an urban history, a local history. Quantitative methodology was used, but the main thing was an interdisciplinary approach, and the use of methods from sociology, historical anthropology, psychology, demography and philology. At the same time, historians especially often turned to sociological methods; it was from sociology that content analysis was borrowed. In sociological research, conflict theory was developed.

There was an exchange of ideas between various national schools. In France these were the next generations of the Annales school, in England - the direction of folk history, a group of demographers-historians in Cambridge and Oxford, a number of universities in Germany, centers of social history in the USA, Italian historians. The new historical science has spread in the USA and Latin America. And even the responses by the end of the 1970s reached Soviet historiography. In each national historiography, historical science had its own specifics.

In France these trends appeared earlier than anywhere else. The sociological school of Emile Durkheim and the scientific center of historical synthesis of Henri Beer emerged. Both considered the main task to be historical synthesis based on the close interaction of history and sociology. Under the influence of their ideas, the Annales school was formed in the 1930s, which dominated French historiography for a long time. The new historical science in France was associated with this school, but differed from it in a number of indicators.

Anthropological history has come to the fore in French historiography - the study of everyday life, family history, illnesses, sexual relationships, etc. Also in France, the history of mentalities became widespread. Historical science has blossomed rapidly in the United States, where the development of history began back in the 1950s. The development of theoretical and applied sociology played a major role in this. It was in the USA that Talcott Parsons developed the theory of social conflict. In the USA, the new historical science developed successfully and rapidly, covering all problem areas.

In 1962, an interuniversity consortium for political and social research was created at the University of Michigan. He began collecting new types of sources in the archive, including punch cards and electronic media with data on elections and population censuses. The information concerned not only the USA, but also other countries. By the end of the 1970s, historical research using computer methods was conducted at 600 American universities. Social history is very widely represented in American historical science. Its formation began under the influence of European historiography - the school of annals, new social history.

An important role in its development was played by the mass social movements of the 1960s, which undermined the idea of ​​consensus theory. As part of the new social history in the United States, the history of farming, workers, entrepreneurs, racial and ethnic societies, groups, women's history, the history of social units, family, family ties, the history of socio-territorial communities, towns, cities, and states stood out.

Great Britain had its own prerequisites for the formation of a new historical science. They were founded in the interwar period, when English economic and social history emerged as new historical disciplines. A number of progressive movements - neoliberal, radical democratic, heterodox Marxism - played an important role in the formation of a new historical science in Great Britain. Ultimately, such figures as Eric Hobsbawm, Edward Thompson, George Ruede, who in their research combined the methodology of new approaches with elements of heterodox Marxism, gained widespread recognition.

In Germany, there were difficult conditions for the formation of a new historical science, which was reflected in the victorious triumph of ideographic methods of historiography, within the framework of which it was impossible to bring history closer to other disciplines. Few German scientists advocated this kind of rapprochement. One of them was sociologist Max Weber. Only in the 1960s, in connection with changes in the economy and socio-political life, it became possible to strengthen the neo-Bieral tendency, and a new generation of historians was formed, alien to German idealistic historicism. Works using interdisciplinary approaches appeared - they were written by Werner Konze, then by Hans Rothfels and Theodor Schieder.

In its attention to anthropological problems, the social history of Germany was reminiscent of French social history, but there were also differences - dislike for the Annales school for sympathy for Marxism. At the end of the twentieth century, a school of everyday history emerged in Germany, which reflected the desire to return to telling the story of the little man. The emerging new historical science had both obvious positive and negative sides.

She was able to overcome the extreme subjectivism characteristic of ideographic historiography in the mid-twentieth century.

Based on quantitative methods, she was able to analyze a huge layer of sources, including statistics, homogeneous facts, which was not possible when using the old descriptive method.

Mastering the methodology of other disciplines helped to better understand the events of the past and look at them in connection with the present. The subject and problems of historical research have been updated. Many stereotypical ideas were refuted.

It still has not developed a general theory of the historical process;

The use of an interdisciplinary approach led to an even greater fragmentation of history, to the emergence of a number of subdisciplines;

Language of research. Works, especially on economic history, are replete with a lot of numbers and statistics. Because of this, they are difficult to read not only by amateurs, but also by professionals.

All this led to the rejection and communization of history.

3) Late 1980s - our days .

In the second half of the twentieth century there was a large-scale expansion of interaction between history and other sciences. New objects of historical research arose, a huge array of sources was brought into circulation, and a number of fundamentally new approaches to the analysis of sources, both traditional and new, were developed. But at the same time, the gap between history for professionals and history for everyone else continued to widen. This situation was aggravated by the spread of the postmodernist view of history, the slogan of which is: “Everyone is his own historian.” In this regard, the principle of looking at historical research, which should be based on reliable sources, was no longer supported.

SECOND QUESTION. One of the factors that had a serious impact on processes in the world was globalization. Globalization relates to the economic sphere, but it affects the dynamics of all processes in the world. Communication, computer technologies, and the media are developing rapidly. Globalization has given rise to a number of problems known as global problems. And the question of studying them and methods of solving them was raised a long time ago, back in the late 1960s. The Club of Rome proposed to develop and study the global problems of our time - the threat of a new world war, the problem of growing social inequality in the world between groups of countries, a set of environmental problems, the problem of non-renewable energy resources, the demographic problem, etc.

One of the problems was interest in the historical transformations of climate and landscapes, which resulted in the emergence and development of environmental history. In addition, a noticeable manifestation of the intellectual reaction to globalization has been the growth of research on migration issues, on ethnic self-awareness, and its growth. These global problems were the focus of international congresses held in the 1990s and 2000s.

Efforts to study and understand global processes have led to the emergence of new scientific and educational programs, in particular at the University of Cambridge, which was called “Globalization in Historical Perspective.” It included topics on the history of globalization, the study of global relationships, the history of international institutions related to the process of globalization, and the problem of international history. By interethnic history, the British understood the history of relations between individuals and cultures, including those individuals who simultaneously belong to several cultures, or individuals who change their identity.

It is obvious that in the age of globalization, the position of Europe continues to change. There is a process of revising such concepts as World History and European History. The famous American historian John Gillis, in his report “On the State of the Study of European History in American Universities,” stated the uncertainty of what the history of Europe is, and what Europe is in general. The very face of Europe is changing. Secondly, Europe's relationship with the rest of the world is obviously changing. Europe has lost its central position both spatially and temporally. It has ceased to serve as a model and measure of progress. But no other regional history has taken the place of European history as a historical model.

As for the dominance of the new historical science, it ended in the 1980s. At the end of the twentieth century, the process of humanization of history unfolded. By the beginning of the 21st century, many theorists were talking about a serious change in the image of the historical discipline and the profession of historian. This situation in the literature is assessed as an anthropological revolution, which has a number of properties:

1) There is an obvious rejection of the spirit of scientism and its attendant macroproblematics. Awareness of the heterogeneity of culture has led to the actualization of research at the micro level.

2) The most important feature of the anthropological revolution was the humanization of history, namely the return of circumstances to human culture. Mark Block wrote about this. In the time of Marc Bloch this was impossible, but then times changed, and in many countries disciplines emerged that dealt with the history of mentality in France, the history of everyday life in Germany, social history in Great Britain, and microhistory in Italy.

3) Instead of the concept that a historian should be objective, they again started talking about the need for constant self-reflection. The historian is required to constantly remember himself in the process of cognition; ideas about the dialogue between the historian and the source are widely used. A large place is occupied by the problems of interpretation of the text and its adequate reading or discourse of the text. Discourse is understood as the internal world of a text, the laws of existence and functioning inherent in a particular text.

4) An important principle of modern historiography has become the changing form of presentation. The trend is to return from a scientific style to a more literary – narrative one. Narrative is a narrative form of presentation of material using not so much a scientific, but a literary style of presentation. The story is enhanced throughout by narrative elements, the goal being a powerful presentation that appeals to the reader's mind and senses.

5) Taken as a given pluralism in relation to other concepts. There is a recognition of the undeniable value of different concepts, a rethinking of many approaches, while none of them should be absolutized. On the contrary, the diversity of meanings presupposes their dialogue. Continuity, the possibility of choosing methodology and analysis are emphasized, and a synthesis of traditions is proclaimed. Researchers identified the features of this new approach in two classic works of the first half of the 1980s. Their authors are American researchers Natalie Zemon Davis and her work “The Return of Martin Guerra”, and the second work is the essay “The Great Execution of the Cat” by Princeton professor Robert Danton. He included this essay as one of the chapters in the book “The Cat Massacre and Other Episodes of French Cultural History.”

In both cases, historians took a funny episode and built concepts from it with far-reaching implications. The book “The Return of Martin Guerre” is based on an amusing incident in 16th-century France. In a southern French village, local resident Martin Guerre disappeared. As it turned out later, he went to fight for Spain. A few years later, his double appeared, who completely replaced him, even in the family. His name was Arnaud de Till. And everyone recognized him as Martin Guerre. Until the denunciation appeared, everything was revealed, and the double was sentenced to death. His side filed an appeal, the case ended up in the Toulouse Parliament. Here the appeal was completely decided in favor of the impostor, but the real Martin Herr appeared, and Arno de Till was hanged.

Natalie Zemon Davis began to reconstruct the motives for this man's actions. She reconstructed images and standards of behavior in the southern regions of France. As a result, she painted images of two marginalized people with an identity crisis, who could not organically fit into the life of their villages, where they happened to be born and raised.

The author of the essay “The Great Execution of the Cat,” Professor Robert Danton, took the events of the 1730s. There they were talking about Nicolas Comte, who served as an apprentice in a printing house. He and his friend were not seated at the table with the owners; they were fed poorly. As a result, they began to organize cat concerts under the windows of their owners at night, preventing them from sleeping. The owner instructed them to deal with the cats, and they killed the owner’s favorite cat and staged the execution ritual.

Robert Danton wondered about the nature of this fun. This is an indicator of the distance separating us from the workers of the 18th century. This story is an occasion to reflect on a different mentality from the modern one, to study someone else’s system.

The historian interpreted this incident as an indirect manifestation of social tension in the relationship between the apprentices and the master's family. The social status of apprentices in the 18th century decreased; previously they were junior members of the family, and now they found themselves in the position of pets. And they began to fight the animals, in particular the cat.

Danton began to study the mentality of the urban lower classes and sought to reconsider traditional positions in relation to the French Revolution. The mentality of the urban lower classes during the years of the Great French Revolution was more likely determined by old mental traditions than by new revolutionary views.

Ultimately, at the turn of two centuries, another period of methodological searches in history began, during which new concepts should be born, scientific strategies should be formed, and an example of this is the new cultural history that is now emerging and the fourth generation of the Annales school in French historiography. The face of the historical discipline and its position in society are changing and will continue to change. In the 19th century, the public and social status of history and the historian was high, but the 20th century and the understanding of its dramatic experience undermined the belief in the benefits and status of history as a teacher, and society as a diligent student. However, the junction marked at the turn of the millennium can return history to its lost position, its central place in the social sciences.

The purpose of public history is to spread ideas about the craft of a historian beyond the narrow scientific circle. At the present stage, historians are asked a number of questions, the answers to which may or may not be found. What will be the place of history in the system of scientific disciplines, in the cultural hierarchy of society, what happens to the functions of historical knowledge, will history be able to provide answers to the processes of globalization, to the development of new technologies, what should be the tasks of historians? Can history continue to teach life? These and other problems are recognized by all leading historical schools, which may hold different views.

NEW SCIENTIFIC HISTORY IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF THE USA IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE XX CENTURY

There are a number of eternal questions that have long troubled minds. Who are we? Where did they come from? Where we are going? These are just some of the problems facing broad disciplines such as philosophy.

In this article we will try to understand what humanity is doing on Earth. Let's get acquainted with the opinions of researchers. Some of them view history as a systematic development, others - as a cyclical closed process.

Philosophy of history

This discipline takes as its basis the question of our role on the planet. Is there any meaning at all to all the events that happen? We are trying to document them and then link them into a single system.

However, who is actually the actor? Does a person create a process, or do events control people? Philosophy of history tries to solve these and many other problems.

During the research process, concepts of historical development were identified. We will discuss them in more detail below.

It is interesting that the term “philosophy of history” first appears in the works of Voltaire, but the German scientist Herder began to develop it.

The history of the world has always interested humanity. Even in the ancient period, people appeared who tried to record and comprehend the events taking place. An example would be the multi-volume work of Herodotus. However, then many things were still explained by “divine” help.

So, let's delve deeper into the features of human development. Moreover, there are only a couple of viable versions as such.

Two points of view

The first type of teachings refers to unitary-stage teachings. What is meant by these words? Proponents of this approach see the process as unified, linear and constantly progressing. That is, both individuals and the entire human society as a whole, which unites them, are distinguished.

Thus, according to this view, we all go through the same stages of development. And Arabs, and Chinese, and Europeans, and Bushmen. Only at the moment we are at different stages. But in the end everyone will come to the same state of developed society. This means that you either need to wait until the others move up the ladder of their evolution, or help them with this.

The tribe must be protected from encroachments on territory and values. Therefore, a warrior class was formed.

The largest faction were ordinary artisans, farmers, cattle breeders - the lower strata of the population.

However, during this period people also used slave labor. Such disenfranchised farm laborers included everyone who was included in their number for various reasons. It was possible to fall into debt slavery, for example. That is, not to give the money, but to work it off. Captives from other tribes were also sold to serve the rich.

Slaves were the main labor force of this period. Look at the pyramids in Egypt or the Great Wall of China - these monuments were erected precisely by the hands of slaves.

The era of feudalism

But humanity developed, and the triumph of science was replaced by the growth of military expansion. A layer of rulers and warriors of stronger tribes, fueled by priests, began to impose their worldview on neighboring peoples, at the same time seizing their lands and imposing tribute.

It became profitable to take ownership not of powerless slaves who could rebel, but of several villages with peasants. They worked in the fields to feed their families, and the local ruler provided them with protection. For this, they gave him part of the harvest and livestock raised.

Concepts of historical development briefly describe this period as a transition of society from manual production to mechanized production. The era of feudalism basically coincides with the Middle Ages and

During these centuries, people mastered both external space - discovering new lands, and internal space - exploring the properties of things and human capabilities. The discovery of America, India, the Great Silk Road and other events characterize the development of mankind at this stage.

The feudal lord who owned the land had governors who interacted with the peasants. This freed up his time and could spend it for his own pleasure, hunting or military robberies.

But progress did not stand still. Scientific thought moved forward, as did social relations.

Industrial society

The new stage of the concept of historical development is characterized by greater human freedom compared to the previous ones. Thoughts begin to arise about the equality of all people, about the right of everyone to a decent life, and not vegetation and hopeless work.

In addition, the first mechanisms appeared that made production easier and faster. Now what a craftsman used to take a week to do could be created in a couple of hours, without involving a specialist or paying him money.

The first factories and plants appeared in place of the guild workshops. Of course, they cannot be compared with modern ones, but for that period they were simply excellent.
Modern concepts of historical development correlate the liberation of humanity from forced labor with its psychological and intellectual growth. It is not for nothing that entire schools of philosophers, natural science researchers and other scientists arise at this time, whose ideas are still valued today.

Who hasn't heard of Kant, Freud or Nietzsche? After the Great French Revolution, humanity began to talk not only about the equality of people, but also about the role of everyone in the history of the world. It turns out that all previous achievements were obtained through human efforts, and not with the help of various deities.

Post-industrial stage

Today we live in a period of greatest achievements, if we look at the historical stages of development of society. Man learned to clone cells, set foot on the surface of the Moon, and explored almost every corner of the Earth.

Our time provides an inexhaustible fountain of opportunities, and it is not for nothing that the second name of the period is information. Nowadays, so much new information appears in a day that previously was not available in a year. We can no longer keep up with this flow.

Also, if you look at production, almost everyone makes mechanisms. Humanity is more occupied in the service and entertainment sectors.

Thus, based on the linear concept of historical development, people move from understanding the environment to becoming familiar with their inner world. It is believed that the next stage will be based on the creation of a society that was previously described only in utopias.

So, we have examined modern concepts of historical development. We also understood more deeply. Now you know the main hypotheses about the evolution of society from the primitive communal system to the present day.

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

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

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

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

Unlike traditional history, “new” history expands the interpretation of the concept of professionalism of a historian, introducing into this concept the need to master the methodological skills of an interdisciplinary approach.
It should be noted that in the formation of the direction of “scientific history”, Marxist theory and methodology of the social sciences played a decisive role. The consequence of this was the attention of historians of this direction to the study of societies, rather than individuals, to the identification of general patterns, generalization as the basis for explaining changes that took place in society in the past. This was a desire to move away from narrative history, which answers the questions “what” and “how” happened in history in chronological order, and a desire to get closer to answering the question “why” when studying the historical past.
Turning to the history of the formation of this direction, we note that it was formulated as the direction of “scientific history” in the 19th century by Leopold von Ranke. Thus, he emphasized as the main characteristics of this kind of historical research special attention to the historical source, the importance of the empirical, documentary basis for historical research, and the introduction of new historical sources into scientific circulation. Subsequently, as a rule, three different currents of “scientific history” are distinguished in historiography, which developed on the basis of different theoretical and methodological foundations and made a special contribution to the development of various spheres of historical science. This is the Marxist direction (primarily associated with the methodology of socio-economic history), the French “Annals school” (developing, first of all, ecological and demographic models) and the American “cliometric methodology” (claiming to create a new political, new economic and new social stories). Special attention should be paid to the theoretical and methodological heterogeneity and conventions of such a classification, which puts both national historiographical schools and international methodological directions on a par. So, for example, one cannot identify the development of quantification methodology only with American historiography, just as one cannot identify Marxist methodology exclusively with Marxist historiography.
It seems important to familiarize the student audience with each of the listed trends in “scientific history” 9 .

Second, cultural trend can be designated, according to the definition of a number of researchers, as "historical turn" a turn not only of history itself towards its own subject - man, but also of the social sciences towards history. Moreover, part of the “historical turn” is the so-called “cultural turn” in the study of humanity and society. In many educational institutions, particularly in the English-speaking world, “cultural studies” has become widespread. Scholars who a decade ago called themselves literary critics, historians of art, or historians of science now prefer to speak of themselves as “cultural historians,” specializing in “visual culture,” “culture of science,” and so on. While political scientists and political historians study “political culture,” economists and economic historians have shifted their attention from production to consumption and to culturally shaped desires and needs. At the same time, the discipline of history is being divided into an increasing number of subdisciplines, and most scholars prefer to contribute to the history of individual “sectors” rather than write about entire cultures 10 .
A new style of cultural history has been born out of the last generation of historians, largely thanks to ex-Marxists, or at least scholars who found some aspect of Marxism attractive. This style has been defined as "new cultural history", although it seems more reasonable to call it "anthropological history" - since many of its adherents were influenced by anthropologists. Much was also borrowed from literary criticism - for example, in the USA, where the “new historians” adapted its method of “close reading” to study documentary texts. Semiotics - the study of all kinds of signs, from poems and drawings to clothing and food - was a joint project of philologists (Roman Jacobson, Roland Barthes) and anthropologists (Claude Levistros). Their focus on deep, immutable structures initially dampened the interest of historians, but over the last generation the contribution of semiotics to the renewal of cultural history has become increasingly clear.
A significant group of scholars now view the past as a distant land, and like anthropologists, see their task as interpreting the language of its culture, both literally and figuratively. In other words, cultural history is a cultural translation from the language of the past into the language of the present, an adaptation of the concepts of contemporaries for historians and their readers.
The difference between the current anthropological model of cultural history and its predecessors, the classical and Marxist models, can be summarized in four points:
1.Firstly, it lacks the traditional contrast between societies with culture and societies without culture. For example, the decline of the Roman Empire is now seen not as the defeat of “culture” under the onslaught of “barbarians”, but as a clash of cultures that had their own values, traditions, practices, representations, etc. No matter how paradoxical this expression may sound, there was a “civilization of barbarians” . Like anthropologists, new cultural historians speak of “cultures” in the plural. While they do not assume that all cultures are equal in all respects, they at the same time refrain from making value judgments about the advantages of one over another - the very judgments that are an obstacle to understanding.
2.Secondly, culture was redefined as the totality of “inherited artifacts, goods, technical processes, ideas, habits and values” (according to Malinowski), or as “the symbolic dimension of social action” (according to Geertz). In other words, the meaning of this concept has been expanded to include a much wider range of activities. Central to this approach is everyday life, or "everyday culture", especially the rules that define everyday life - what Bourdieu calls the "theory of practice" and Lotman calls the "poetics of everyday behavior." Understood in this broad sense, culture is called upon to explain economic and political changes that were previously viewed more narrowly.

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

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

However, today it seems obvious that in history itself there are sources for theoretical generalizations, for the emergence of theory (which creates the basis for the formation of a “sociology of history”), and the historical context in sociology leads, in turn, to the formation of “historical sociology.”
If in the post-war period historical science was characterized by a deep interest in the “new scientific approach”, which was not only methodological, because it also presupposed a search for theory in history as a discipline (disciplinary theory), then at the present stage this search for a disciplinary theory has manifested itself in revival of narrativeas an ontological and epistemological concept, principle for the practice of historical research. This new trend was analyzed by the English historian Lawrence Stone in his article “The Revival of Narrative,” published in 1970 and still widely discussed today (L. Stone, “The Rerival of the Narrative,” Past and present, 85 (1979). R 3-24).
Interest in narrative at the present stage is manifested in two aspects. First, historians are interested in the creation of narrative as such. Secondly (and this became evident after the publication of Stone's article), historians began to view many of the sources as stories told by specific people, and not as an objective reflection of the past; The 1990s confirmed that Stone was right in declaring “a shift from an analytical to a descriptive model of historical writing.”
However, the narrative can be either quite simple (like a line from a chronicle) or very complex, capable of withstanding the burden of interpretation. The problem facing historiography today is to create a narrative that describes not only the sequence of events and the conscious intentions of the actors in them, but also the structures - institutions, ways of thinking, etc. - that inhibit or, conversely, accelerate the course these events. Today we can talk about the following approaches to solving it:
“Micronarrative” is a type of microhistory that tells about ordinary people in their local environment (works by K. Ginzburg, N.Z. Davis). In this case, the narrative allows us to highlight structures that were previously invisible (the structures of a peasant family, cultural conflict, etc.)
2. Attempts to link the particular with the general, micronarrative and macronarrative within the framework of one work are the most productive direction in the historiography of recent years. In Orlando Figes's monograph “The People's Tragedy” (Pop1e"z Trigedu, 1996), the author presents a narrative of the events of the Russian revolution, into which private stories of historical figures are “woven”, both famous (Maxim Gorky) and completely ordinary ones (a certain peasant Sergei Semenov).
3. A presentation of history in reverse order, from the present to the past, or rather, a presentation of the past reflected in the present. An example of this approach is the history of Poland as presented by Norman Davies (Norman Davies. Art of Europe, 1984).
An important consequence of the ongoing changes within historical science, associated with the growth of disciplinary self-awareness, is "new historicism". New historicism is directly related to the use of cultural theory by the historical community, and in the methodological aspect it is associated with the recognition of the special role, the “power” of literary forms that can have a decisive influence on the process of the birth and design of ideas, subject matter and practice of historical writings. New historicism is associated with the negation of the “social”, which is no longer assessed as a certain “framework” of history, but only as a moment in history and, therefore, with the replacement of the concept of “social” with new concepts. Let us note that the concept of historicism was widely discussed in historiography by representatives of various schools and directions and is one of the most ambitious in the methodology of history. It is based on emphasizing constant movement and change in the course of events, the role of which is interpreted differently depending on the theoretical views of representatives of certain historiographic schools. Thus, “absolute historicism”, developed by German historiography, is equivalent to relativism and leads to the conclusion about the uniqueness of a historical fact. At the same time, he opposes the thesis about the immutability of human nature.
The version of the “new” scientific approach to history was associated, in particular, with middle-level theories, which were used as a “mediator” in the relationship between the historian and the facts and had a dual function: a research hypothesis and a guarantor of objectivity. At the epistemological level, the “new approach” was manifested in the division of the “actual past,” the “reproduced past,” and the “written past.” The general trend was movement along the path search disciplinary theory for history(from borrowing“social” theories to historical self-awareness, “new historicism”). It must be said that in historiography there is a long tradition of searching for a “disciplinary theory”. David Carr sees the following stages and aspects of the formation of disciplinary theory. Thus, already from the mid-1940s, there was a division of history into layers on which written history was based, which, in turn, was considered as a systematic or fragmentary narrative belonging to part of history-reality. This division of history already emphasized the special role of narrative. There were other approaches, such as functionalism (presentism), which considered the basic principles that “guide” historical research, determine the choice of problem, selection of sources and evaluation of results as a function of the present, for the historian writes in the context of the problem he chooses in the present, for reasons and with such an approach to decision, which are accepted by science at the present stage. That is, the very appeal to history would always be a function of the present. In the post-war period, political functionalism was criticized as well as presentist theories. At this time, historians came to the conclusion about the role of theory (borrowed for now) and the preference of middle-level theory over “grand theories.” Since the mid-1950s, historians have embraced the belief that the facts speak for themselves, as well as that history is repeatable in its entirety. "doubts were also raised by the position that history has no theoretical basis (except for time sequence) for generalization. The existence of “theoretical-minded historians” was allowed, using the theories of social sciences - various concepts of historical changes - Marxism, evolutionary theory, theological theories, the concepts of Toynbee and Spengler (works that were assessed as speculative philosophies of history.) However, in the 1960-70s, there was a devaluation of generalizing theories, “philosophies of history,” and historians preferred to return to middle-level theories.The relationship between history and sociology was not methodological, but theoretical in nature.
Indicators of recent decades, along with the growth disciplinary consciousness historians have reducing barriers between history and other disciplines. Historians continue to borrow theories in anthropology, literary studies, ethnology, etc. Interdisciplinarity at the historiographical level was manifested in the appearance in the 1960-70s of various “new histories” (urban, labor, family, women’s, etc.), which shared this methodological orientation.
So, the historicity of this epochal turn lies in its direction against the science of society, which was formed as an opposition to “traditional” history in the post-war period. This is a turn to history as a “past” understood, however, primarily as a culture, to history as a context (not as a discipline), which has become a component of intellectual research in a wide range of fields. The result of the "historical turn" is the revival of narrative history that focuses on events, culture and individuals.

The current state of development of historical methodology is characterized by a critical, and sometimes nihilistic, attitude towards the previous tradition. Almost all major historiographical trends are subject to critical analysis, the ideas of which are looking for new paradigms within history as a social science. Historiographers note a crisis in the concept of “scientific history.”
The manifestation of a critical-nihilistic attitude towards the main directions of the methodology of history of the 20th century - positivism, Marxism, structuralism - the historical community calls "postmodern challenge" 14. It should be noted that "postmodernism" is a concept that relates to a very wide range of issues, including outside history. As noted in the special publication “Historiography between Modernism and Postmodernism: Research in the Methodology of Historical Research,” in an article devoted to the origins of postmodern historiography, postmodernism is a multi-valued concept 15 . As the representatives of postmodernism themselves noted in the materials of a conference specifically dedicated to the issues of postmodernism and held in 1984 in Utrecht (Netherlands), they were able to define only the general contours of the concept of “postmodernism” or “poststructuralism”. However, the ideologists of postmodernism see its place in historical theory as “the radicalization of nineteenth-century historicism.” Postmodernism, in their opinion, is both a “theory of history” and a “theory about history” 1b.
As is known, postmodernism appeared as a negation of modernist architecture, represented by such movements as the Bauhaus and the school of Le Carbusier. This concept is also used to designate new directions.
In studies devoted to postmodernism, this phenomenon is associated with representativeism - a direction whose representatives define history as “representation in text form”, which should be subject to aesthetic analysis in the first place 18. The basis for such judgments are the statements of the ideologists of postmodernism that “in recent decades (XX century - KS.) a new order of relations has emerged between historical reality and its representation in historical research,” which was largely facilitated by the postmodernists themselves * 9 .
Postmodernists see their goal as “cutting the ground from under the feet of science and modernism.” The main provisions of the ideologists of postmodernism - the Dutch scientist F. Ankersmit and the American researcher H. White - are set out in their monographs and on the pages of scientific journals 20 .
Obviously, the publication of White's Metahistory can be seen as a shift in the theory and philosophy of history, called the “linguistic turn.” In this linguistic turn, narrative and representation have gained a prominent place in discussions of important issues such as explanation in history. The poetics of history came to the fore, due to which the question “how history differs from literature” replaced the question “how history differs from science” as the main question of metahistorical reflection.
The starting point for postmodernist ideas about the subject of “writing history” was the current “overproduction” of historical research. The situation that Nietzsche feared more than a hundred years ago, when historiography itself prevents us from forming an idea of ​​the past, according to the ideologists of postmodernism, has become a reality. They also deny the possibility of creating a comprehensive (total) history due to the lack of an adequate theory of history, the underdevelopment of “theoretical history”, which is not able to overcome the chaos caused by the differentiation of the subject area of ​​history (“fragmentation of the past”, according to Ankersmit’s definition), the specialization of historical research and "overproduction" of historical literature. The current state of historiography, according to postmodernists, forces reality and the historical past to be relegated to the background. The object of historical science—historical reality—becomes the information itself, and not the reality hidden behind it 21 .
Nowadays, as postmodernists argue, historiography has “outgrown its traditional theoretical coat” and, therefore, needs new clothes. Representatives of postmodernism see an important task in determining the place of history in modern civilization, which means, in their version, identifying parallels, i.e. similarities between history and literature, literary criticism.
For postmodernists, both the philosophy of science and science itself are a given, the starting point of their thinking. Postmodernists do not focus attention either on scientific research itself or on how society assimilates its results; the center of their interests is only the functioning of science and scientific information as such.
For postmodernism, science and information are independent objects of study, subject to their own laws. The main law of postmodern information theory is the law of information multiplication, reflected, in particular, in the following thesis: “The stronger and more convincing the interpretation, the more new works (new information -KS.) it generates." The subject of analysis by postmodernists is the language used in science, and the phenomena of the historical past and reality acquire a linguistic nature in their research. The language used in science is a subject, and objects in reality acquire a linguistic nature.
Past reality should be considered, according to postmodernists, as a text written in a foreign language, having the same lexical, grammatical, syntactic and semantic parameters as any other text. Thus, according to Ankersmit, there was a “transfer of the historian’s interest from historical reality to the printed page” 22. Thus, postmodernists contrast historiography, as well as art and literature, with science, absolutizing the aesthetic function of history and identifying historical research with a literary work. Thus, Hayden White is assessed as an adherent of “rhetorical analysis” of historical writings. For White there is no doubt: history, first of all, is an exercise in rhetoric, including the selection of facts, but first of all embodied in a story and involving a special technology 23.
For a detailed analysis of X. White's theory of historical research, see: R. Torshtendahl. Op. op.
If the modernist historian (“scientific historian”) comes to conclusions on the basis of historical sources and the evidence of historical reality hidden behind them, then from the point of view of the postmodernist, the evidence points not to the past itself, but to other interpretations of the past, since in fact we use evidence precisely for it. This approach can be characterized as a modernization of a historical source. The specificity of the proposed method of analyzing sources is that it is not so much aimed at identifying the historical reality hidden in them, but rather emphasizes that these evidence of the past acquire meaning and significance only in a collision with the mentality of a later time in which the historian lives and writes.
Postmodernism developed against the background of a “paradigmatic shift” in modern historiography: the latter consists mainly in the transfer by historians of their scientific interests from the sphere of macrohistorical structures to the field of microhistorical situations and everyday relationships.
All areas of “scientific history,” which they call “modernist scientific historiography,” were criticized by postmodernists for their historicism and attention to what actually happened in the past, and insufficient sensitivity to a priori schemes. In this context, postmodernists have also emphasized the close ties that bind so-called “scientific social history” to Marxism.
With the advent of postmodernist (nominalist) historiography, especially in the history of mentalities, in their opinion, for the first time there was a break with the age-old essentialist (realist) tradition. According to the postmodern concept of history, the goal of research is no longer integration, synthesis and totality, but historical details, which become the focus of attention.
For various reasons, postmodernists suggest that an autumn has arrived in Western historiography, which is manifested in a diminishing commitment to science and tradition. Postmodernists also believe that an important reason for this historiographical situation is the change in the position of Europe in the world since 1945. The history of this part of the Eurasian continent is no longer universal history.
From a postmodernist perspective, the focus shifts from the past itself to the discrepancy between the present and the past, between the language we now use to talk about the past and the past itself. There is no longer “a single thread that connects the whole story.” This explains the attention of postmodernists to everything that seems meaningless and inappropriate precisely from the point of view of “scientific history.”
Modern trends, manifested in changes in the structure of the subject of history, have as their goal, as already noted, expansion of historical knowledge, including at the expense new methodological ways obtaining historical knowledge based on development interdisciplinary approach and various levels and scales of vision of the object and subject of historical science, historical research. In particular, changes in ideas about the subject of history, its enrichment, are manifested in the emergence of “new” sub-subject areas of historical science. There is already a significant tradition of existence in such areas that are structural components of the subject of history as a science, such as microhistory, oral history, history of everyday life, gender studies, history of mentalities, etc.
5historiography Between Modernism and Postmodernism: Contributions to the Methodology of the Historical Research / Jerzy Topolski, ed.-Amsterdam, Atlanta, GA: Rodopi press, 1994.
6.See more details: Repina L.P. "New historical science" and social history. - M., 1998.
7. Kovalchenko I.D. Methods of historical research. - M., 1987. -section "Quantitative methods in historical research." See also: D.K. Simonthon. Psychology, Science, and History: An Introduction to Historiometry.-New Heaven and London: Yale University Press, 1990. Konrad H.Jaraush, Kenneth A.Hardy. Quantitative Methods for Historians: A guide to research, data, and statistics. - Chapel Hill nd London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1991.
8. Burke, P. Overture. The New History: Its Past and its Future//Burke, P. (ed.) New Perspektives of Historical Writing. Pennsylvania, 2001.P.1-24.
See more details: Kovalchenko I.D. Methods of historical research...; Gurevich A.L. Historical synthesis and the Annales school. -M., 1993. Quantitative methods in Soviet and American historiography. -M., 1983.
10. Burke, P. Unity and Variety of Cultural History// Burke, P.Varieties of Cultural History.NY, 1997.Pp.183-212.
11 The historic Turn in the Human Science.-Michigan, 1996. - R. 213, 223.
12 See Russian translation of the publication: T. Kuhn. The structure of scientific revolutions. -M., 1977.
13.The methodology of comparative historical analysis, given its significance, will be specifically discussed in a special section of the manual.
14 See "The Postmodern Challenge" and Prospects for a New Cultural and Intellectual History. - In the book: Repina L.P. "New historical science" and social history. - M., 1998.
15 Frank R. Ankersmith. The Origins of Postmodernist Historiography.-In. Historiography between Modernism and Postmodernism (Contributions to the Methology of Historical Research), J.Topolsky (ed.).-Amsterdam, Atlanta, GA, 1994. - R. 87-117.
1bIbid -R. 87-88.
17.G.Vattino. The End of Modernity. Nihilism and Hermeneutics in Postmodern Culture.-London, 1988.
18. R. Torshtendapi. Constructivism and representationalism in history. - In the book: Problems of source study and historiography: Materials of scientific readings. - M., 2000. - P. 68-69.
19. The Origins of Postmodernist Historiography...-P.92-93.
20.F.Ankermist. Historiography and postmodernism. - In the book: Modern methods of teaching modern and contemporary history... F. Ankersmith. History and Tropolgy. The Rise and Fall of Metaphor.-Los Angeles, London, 1994. H.White.Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth Century Europe.-Baltimore, 1973. H.White. Historism, History and the Figurative Imagination // History and theory 14 (1975)
21 F. Ankersmit. Historiography and postmodernism... - P. 145.
22. The origins of Postmodernism...-Zyu102-103.
23. For a similar analysis of H. White’s theory of historical research, see: R. Torshtendahl. Op. op.