Methodology is an integral part of scientific knowledge
Any discipline, in order to have scientific status, must inevitably acquire a clear systematic approach and methodology of knowledge. Otherwise, in the absence of a methodological apparatus, strictly speaking, it cannot be considered a science. A striking example of such a statement is the existence of a number of alternative views (like homeopathy). The historical discipline, taking shape as a science, of course, also over time acquired its own scientific apparatus and acquired methods of historical research.
Peculiarities
It is interesting that research methods in history are not always purely historical; sometimes they are borrowed from other sciences. Thus, much was taken from sociology, geography, philosophy, ethnography, etc. However, history has one important feature that is unique to it. This is the only scientific discipline, the object and subject of research of which do not exist in real time, which complicates their study, significantly reduces the capabilities of its methodological apparatus, and also adds inconvenience to the researcher, who inevitably projects his own experience and beliefs onto the logic and motivation of past eras.
A variety of historical methods of knowledge
Methods of historical research can be classified in different ways. However, these methods formulated by historians are divided mainly into the following: logical knowledge, general scientific methods, special, interdisciplinary.
Logical or philosophical methods of historical research represent the most elementary elements of common sense in the study of a subject: generalization, analysis, comparison, analogy.
General scientific methods
These are those methods of historical research that do not belong only to history, but extend in general to the methods of scientific knowledge, such as the following: scientific experiment, measurement, hypothesis building, and so on.
Special methods
They are the main ones and characteristic of a particular story. There are also a lot of them, but the following are the main ones. Ideographic (narrative), which consists in the most accurate description of facts (of course, a description of reality and facts has a place in any study, but in history it has a very special character). Retrospective method, which consists of tracking the chronicle preceding the event of interest in order to identify its causes. Closely related to it is the historical-genetic method, aimed at studying the early development of the event of interest. The historical-comparative method is based on the search for what is common and different in phenomena occurring in distant time and geographical periods, that is, on identifying patterns. The logical successor of the previous method is the historical-typological method, which is based on the found patterns of phenomena, events, cultures, and creates their classification for simpler subsequent analysis. The chronological method involves a strict presentation of factual material in the correct sequence.
Interdisciplinary methods
Methods of historical research include interdisciplinary ones. For example, quantitative, borrowed from mathematics. Or socio-psychological. And geography did not just give history a cartographic method of research based on close work with maps. The purpose of the latter is to identify patterns and causes of historical events. A special discipline was born - historical geography, which studies the influence of geographical and climatic features on the course of history.
Thus, methods of historical research are the most important basis for history as a science.
You can find reliable information and gain new historical knowledge methods studying history. As is known, any process of cognition, including the knowledge of history, consists of three components: the object of historical knowledge, the researcher and the method of cognition.
In order to develop an objective picture of the historical process, historical science must rely on a certain methodology that would make it possible to organize all the material accumulated by researchers.
Methodology(from the ancient Greek methodos - the path of research and logos - teaching) history is a theory of knowledge, including the doctrine of structure, logical organization, principles and means of obtaining historical knowledge. It develops the conceptual framework of science, general techniques and standards for obtaining knowledge about the past, and deals with the systematization and interpretation of the data obtained in order to clarify the essence of the historical process and reconstruct it in all its specificity and integrity. However, in historical science, as in any other science, there is no single methodology: differences in worldview and understanding of the nature of social development lead to the use of different methodological research techniques. In addition, the methodology itself is constantly in development, replenished with more and more new methods of historical knowledge.
Under methods Historical research should understand the ways of studying historical patterns through their specific manifestations - historical facts, ways of extracting new knowledge from facts.
Methods and principles
There are three types of methods in science:
Philosophical (basic) - empirical and theoretical, observation and experiment, isolation and generalization, abstraction and concretization, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, etc.
General scientific – descriptive, comparative, comparative-historical, structural, typological, structural-typological, systemic,
Special (specific scientific) - reconstruction, historical-genetic, phenomenological (the study of historical phenomena, what is given in the sensory and mental intuition of a person), hermeneutic (the art and theory of interpretation of texts), etc.
The following methods are widely used by modern researchers:
Historical method - this is the path, the method of action through which the researcher acquires new historical knowledge.
The main historical methods of scientific research often include four methods: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological and historical-systemic.
The most common in historical research is historical-genetic method. Its essence comes down to the consistent disclosure of the properties and functions of the object being studied in the process of its change. When using this method, cognition proceeds from the individual to the particular, and then to the general and universal. The advantage and at the same time disadvantage of this method is that when it is used, the individual characteristics of the researcher are revealed more clearly than in other cases. One of its weaknesses can be considered that an excessive desire to detail various aspects of the problem being studied can lead to an unfair exaggeration of unimportant elements and smoothing out the most important ones. Such a disproportion will lead to a misconception about the essence of the process, event or phenomenon being studied.
Historical-comparative method. The objective basis for its use is that socio-historical development is a repeating, internally determined, natural process. Many events that took place at different times and on different scales are similar in many ways and different from each other in many ways. Therefore, by comparing them, it becomes possible to explain the content of the facts and phenomena under consideration. This is the main cognitive significance of the historical-comparative method.
The right to exist as an independent method has historical-typological method. Typology (classification) serves to organize historical phenomena, events, objects in the form of qualitatively defined types (classes) based on their inherent common features and differences. For example, when studying the history of World War II, a historian can raise the question of the balance of power between the Hitler and anti-Hitler coalitions. In this case, the warring parties can be conditionally divided into two groups. Then the sides of each group will differ only in one way - their attitude towards Germany's allies or enemies. In other respects they may differ significantly. In particular, the anti-Hitler coalition will include socialist countries and capitalist countries (by the end of the war there will be more than 50 states). But this is a simple classification that does not give a sufficiently complete idea of the contribution of these countries to the common victory, but rather, on the contrary, is capable of developing erroneous knowledge about the role of these states in the war. If the task is to identify the role of each state in carrying out successful operations, destroying enemy manpower and equipment, liberating occupied territories, and so on, then the states of the anti-Hitler coalition corresponding to these indicators will be a typical grouping, and the study procedure itself will be a typology.
In current conditions, when historical research is increasingly characterized by a holistic coverage of history, it is increasingly used historical-systemic method, that is, a method using which the unity of events and phenomena in socio-historical development is studied. For example, considering the history of Russia not as some kind of independent process, but as a result of interaction with other states in the form of one of the elements in the development of the history of the entire civilization.
In addition, the following methods are widely used;
Dialectical method, which requires all phenomena and events to be considered in their development and in connection with other phenomena and events;
Chronological method, the essence of which is that events are presented strictly in temporal (chronological) order;
The problem-chronological method examines individual aspects (problems) in the life of society (state) in their strictly historical and chronological order;
Chronological-problematic method, in which the study of history is carried out by periods or eras, and within them - by problems;
The synchronous method is used less frequently; with its help, it is possible to establish a connection between individual phenomena and processes occurring at the same time, but in different parts of the country or beyond its borders.
Periodization method;
Retrospective;
Statistical;
Sociological method. research taken from sociology and used to study and research contemporary issues
Structural-functional method. Its essence lies in decomposing the object under study into its component parts and identifying the internal connection, conditionality, and relationship between them.
In addition, historical research also uses general scientific methods of cognition: analysis, synthesis, extrapolation, as well as mathematical, statistical, retrospective, system-structural, etc. These methods complement each other
It is important to consider that these and other existing methods are used in combination with each other, complementing each other. The use of any one method in the process of historical knowledge only removes the researcher from objectivity.
Principles of studying historical facts
Historical research is carried out on the basis of certain principles. Under principles It is customary to understand the basic, initial position of any theory, teaching, science, or worldview. The principles are based on objective laws of social historical development. The most important principles of historical research are: the principle of historicism, the principle of objectivity, the principle of a spatio-temporal approach to the event being studied.
The basic scientific principles are the following:
The principle of historicism presupposes the need to evaluate historical processes not from the standpoint of today's experience, but taking into account the specific historical situation. It requires the researcher to take into account the level of theoretical knowledge of the participants in a particular historical process, their social consciousness, practical experience, capabilities and means for making optimal decisions. An event or person cannot be considered simultaneously or abstractly, outside of temporal positions.
The principle of historicism is closely related to the principle of objectivity
Principle of objectivity involves relying on facts in their true content, not distorted or adjusted to fit a scheme. This principle requires considering each phenomenon in its versatility and inconsistency, in the totality of both positive and negative aspects. The main thing in ensuring the principle of objectivity is the personality of the historian: his theoretical views, culture of methodology, professional skill and honesty. This principle requires the scientist to study and illuminate each phenomenon or event in its entirety, in the totality of its positive and negative aspects. Finding the truth for a true scientist is more important than party, class and other interests.
Principle spatio-temporal approach to the analysis of the processes of social development suggests that outside the categories of social space and time as forms of social existence it is not possible to characterize social development itself. This means that the same laws of social development cannot be applied to different historical eras. With changes in specific historical conditions, changes in the form of manifestation of the law may occur, expansion or narrowing of the scope of its action (as happened, for example, with the evolution of the law of class struggle.
The principle of the social approach involves consideration of historical and economic processes taking into account the social interests of various segments of the population, various forms of their manifestation in society. This principle (also called the principle of the class, party approach) obliges us to correlate class and narrow group interests with universal ones, taking into account the subjective aspect of the practical activities of governments, parties, and individuals.
The principle of alternativeness determines the degree of probability of the occurrence of a particular event, phenomenon, process based on an analysis of objective realities and possibilities. Recognition of historical alternativeness allows us to re-evaluate the path of each country, see the untapped possibilities of the process, and draw lessons for the future.
Methodological concepts of the historical process.
History is one of the oldest sciences, about 2500 years old. During this time, many conceptual approaches to the study of the historical past of mankind have developed and functioned in historical science. For a long time, it was dominated by subjectivist and objective-idealistic methodologies.
From the standpoint of subjectivism, the historical process was explained by the actions of outstanding historical figures: Caesars, Shahs, Kings, Emperors, Generals, etc. According to this approach, their talented actions or, conversely, mistakes and inactions, led to certain historical events, the totality and interconnection of which determined the course of the historical process.
The objectively idealistic concept assigned a decisive role in the historical process to the manifestation of superhuman forces: Divine will, Providence, the Absolute Idea, the World Spirit, etc. With this interpretation, the historical process acquired a strictly purposeful and orderly character. Under the influence of these superhuman forces, society was supposedly moving towards a predetermined goal. People, individual historical figures acted only as a means, an instrument in the hands of these faceless forces.
An attempt to put the methodology of historical research on a scientific basis was first made by the German thinker K. Marx. He formulated concept of materialistic understanding of history , based on 4 main principles:
The unity of humanity, and, consequently, the unity of the historical process;
Historical pattern, i.e. recognition of the action in the historical process of general stable laws of social development;
Determinism - recognition of the existence of cause-and-effect relationships and dependencies in the historical process;
Progress, i.e. the progressive development of society, rising to higher and higher levels of its development.
The Marxist materialist explanation of history is based on formational approach to the historical process. Marx believed that if humanity as a single whole develops naturally, progressively, then each part of it must go through all stages of this development. These stages in the Marxist theory of knowledge are called socio-economic formations. The concept of “socio-economic formation” is key in Marxism in explaining the driving forces of the historical process and the periodization of history.
basis socio-economic formation and, according to Marx, is one or another mode of production. It is characterized by the level of development of the productive forces of society and the nature of production relations corresponding to this level. The totality of production relations and methods of production constitute the economic basis of a social formation, on which all other relations in society (political, legal, ideological, religious, etc.), as well as state and public institutions, science, culture, morality, are built on and on which depend. morality, etc. Thus, the concept of socio-economic formation includes all the diversity of the life of society at one or another stage of its development. The economic basis determines the qualitative feature of a given formation, and the superstructure generated by it characterizes the uniqueness of the social and spiritual life of the people of this formation.
From point of view formational approach, The human community in its historical development goes through five main stages (formations):
primitive communal
slaveholding,
feudal,
capitalist and
communist (socialism is the first phase of the communist formation). The transition from one formation to another is carried out on the basis social revolution. The economic basis of the social revolution is the conflict between the productive forces of society, which have reached a new, higher level, and the outdated system of production relations.
In the political sphere, this conflict manifests itself in the growth of irreconcilable, antagonistic contradictions in society, in the intensification of the class struggle between the oppressors and the oppressed. Social conflict is resolved by revolution, which brings a new class to political power. In accordance with the objective laws of development, this class forms a new economic basis and political superstructure of society. Thus, according to Marxist-Leninist theory, a new socio-economic formation is being formed.
At first glance, this concept creates a clear model of the entire historical development of society. The history of mankind appears before us as an objective, natural, progressive process. However, the formational approach to understanding the history of social development is not without significant drawbacks.
Firstly, it assumes the unilinear nature of historical development. The specific experience of the development of individual countries and regions shows that not all of them fit into the strict framework of the five socio-economic formations. The formational approach, therefore, does not reflect the diversity and multivariance of historical development. It lacks a spatiotemporal approach to the analysis of social development processes.
Secondly, the formational approach strictly connects all changes in society with the economic basis, economic relations. Considering the historical process from the standpoint of determinism, i.e. Attaching decisive importance in explaining historical phenomena to objective, extra-personal factors, this approach assigns a secondary role to the main subject of history - man. This ignores the human factor, downplays the personal content of the historical process, and along with it the spiritual factors of historical development.
Thirdly, the formational approach absolutizes the role of conflict relations in society, gives the class struggle and violence decisive importance in the progressive historical development. However, as the historical experience of the last fifty years shows, in many countries and regions the manifestation of these “locomotives of history” is limited. In the post-war period in Western Europe, for example, a reformist modernization of social structures was carried out. While not eliminating the inequality between labor and capital, it nevertheless significantly increased the living standards of wage workers and sharply reduced the intensity of the class struggle.
Fourthly, the formational approach is associated with elements of social utopianism and even providentialism (a religious and philosophical view according to which the development of human society, the sources of its movement and purpose are determined by mysterious forces external to the historical process - providence, God). The formational concept based on the law of “negation of negation” assumes the inevitability of the development of the historical process from primitive communal communism (classless primitive communal socio-economic formation) through class (slave, feudal and capitalist) formations to scientific communism (classless communist formation). The inevitability of the onset of the communist era, the “welfare society” runs like a red thread through all Marxist theory and ideology. The utopian nature of these postulates has been fully revealed in recent decades in the Soviet Union and other so-called countries. socialist system.
In modern historical science, the formational methodological concept is opposed to methodology civilizational approach to the process of development of human society. The civilizational approach allows scientists to move away from a one-dimensional picture of the world and take into account the uniqueness of the development paths of individual regions, countries and peoples.
The concept of “civilization” has become widely established in modern Western historiography, politics, and philosophy. The most prominent representatives of the civilizational concept of social development among Western researchers are M. Weber, A. Toynbee, O. Spengler and a number of other prominent scientists.
However, for many decades, Soviet social science, in presenting the course of the world-historical process, placed the main emphasis on the theory of socio-economic formations, because the cornerstone of this theory is the substantiation of the revolutionary replacement of capitalism by socialism. And only in the late 80s - early 90s. In the domestic scientific literature, the shortcomings of the rigid five-fold approach to history began to be revealed. The requirement to complement the formational approach with a civilizational one sounded like an imperative.
The civilizational approach to the historical process and social phenomena has a number of serious advantages over the formational one:
Firstly, its methodological principles are applicable to the history of any country or group of countries and to any historical time. It is focused on understanding the history of society, taking into account the specifics of individual countries and regions and, to a certain extent, is universal in nature;
Secondly, the focus on taking into account the specifics of individual human communities makes it possible to consider history as a multilinear and multivariate process;
Thirdly, the civilizational approach does not reject, but, on the contrary, presupposes the integrity and unity of human history. From the point of view of this approach, individual civilizations as integral systems that include various elements (economic, political, social, science, culture, religion, etc.) are comparable to each other. This makes it possible to widely use the comparative historical method of research. As a result of this approach, the history of individual countries, peoples, regions is not considered in itself, in comparison with the history of other countries, peoples, regions, civilizations. This makes it possible to better understand historical processes and identify the peculiarities of the development of individual countries;
Fourthly, the definition of clear criteria for the development of the world community allows researchers to fairly fully assess the level of development of certain countries and regions, their contribution to the development of world civilization;
Fifthly, in contrast to the formational approach, where the dominant role belongs to economic factors, the formational approach gives its due place in the historical process to spiritual, moral and intellectual human factors. Therefore, when characterizing a particular civilization, such factors as religion, culture, and the mentality of the people play an important role.
However, the civilizational approach also contains a number of significant flaws. This, first of all, refers to the amorphous nature of the criteria for determining types of civilization. It is known that in the development of some civilizations the economic principle is decisive, in others it is the political principle, in others it is the religious principle, and in others it is the cultural principle. Particularly great difficulties arise when assessing the type of civilization, when its most important essential principle is the mentality of society.
In addition, in civilizational methodology the problems of the driving forces of the historical process, the direction and meaning of historical development are not clearly developed.
It is also important to emphasize that the last quarter of the twentieth century was marked by intense reassessment of values. Many scientists perceive this phenomenon as a spiritual revolution, which prepares the arrival of a new system of social life or, as they say today, a new world order, i.e. a qualitatively new stage in the development of world civilization. In the context of the unfolding intellectual revolution, there is a crisis not only of the Marxist methodology of knowledge, but also of almost all areas of major classical theories of knowledge with their philosophical, ideological and logical-methodological foundations. According to Professor V. Yadov, world sociological thought today “casts doubt on the suitability of all classical social theories developed in the past”
The crisis in the theory of knowledge of the surrounding world is caused, first of all, by the fact that modern human society is entering a new era of its development, which is usually called a turning point. In a variety of forms, the trends inherent in the new order of development are affirmed - the trends in the formation of a multidimensional world. Previously existing theories of knowledge (including Marxism) were focused on the development of machine civilization. Marxism in its essence is the logic and theory of machine civilization. However, this theory in one form or another extended to both earlier and future forms of social development.
Today, humanity is experiencing a change from the industrial paradigm of social progress to post-industrial, informational, which indicates its entry into a new world civilization. And this, in turn, necessitates the creation of an appropriate logical and methodological tool for understanding social development.
Among the new methodological approaches to the problems of global social development, the concept of a multifundamental multidimensional world should be highlighted. One of the criteria for multidimensionality is the equation of the part and the whole. In the multidimensional picture of a social system, such parts as culture, science, economics, politics, etc. are not less than the whole, but are of equal order and equal in power (equal in essence) with it. In other words, multidimensionality is not a relationship between a social system and its private spheres, levels, subsystems, and not a relationship between structures, one of which is determined by the basic, primary, fundamental, etc. This relationship is revealed at a deeper level: between such structures, each of which is an equivalent individual dimension of the social whole into which it is included.
Recently, researchers have demonstrated an increasing commitment to a nonlinear (synergetic) style of thinking. Having emerged in the field of physics and chemistry and acquiring the corresponding mathematical support, synergetics quickly expanded beyond the scope of these sciences, and soon biologists, and after them social scientists, found themselves under its powerful influence.
Using synergetics as a methodology, historical processes are studied in their multidimensional form. The central place in the study is occupied by issues of self-organization, self-development in open and closed systems. Society appears as a nonlinear system with an integrating system-forming factor. The role of this factor in different systems can be played by different subsystems, including not always the economic sphere. Much depends on the reaction of society to the challenge of the “external environment” and the dynamics of internal processes. The reaction of society is aimed at achieving the most useful result within the framework of appropriate value orientations.
Synergetics considers the development of society as a nonlinear system, which is carried out through two models: evolutionary and bifurcation. The evolutionary model is characterized by the action of various determinations. They are not limited to cause-and-effect relationships, but also include functional, target, correlation, systemic and other types of determinations. A distinctive feature of the evolutionary model is the immutability of system quality, which is determined through the system-forming factor. Throughout the entire stage of evolutionary development, the system-forming factor manifests itself as a special activity of a specific set of systems that play a leading role in the life of society at a given period of time.
According to the evolutionary model, the sustainable development of society is replaced by an increase in internal disequilibrium - a weakening of connections within the system - which indicates an impending crisis. In a state of maximum internal disequilibrium, society enters a bifurcation phase of development, after which the previous systemic quality is destroyed. The old determinations are not in effect here, the new ones have not yet unfolded. Under these conditions, alternative opportunities for reaching new systemic connections arise. The choice of one path or another at the bifurcation point depends on the effect of fluctuation (random factor), first of all, on the activities of specific people. It is a specific historical person (or persons) who bring the system to a new systemic quality. Moreover, the choice of path is made based on individual attitudes and preferences.
The role of chance and freedom at the bifurcation point is not just great, it is fundamental. This allows us to single out the class of unstable systems as an independent object of study, along with stable systems. The effect of the randomness factor indicates that the historical development of each society is individual and unique.
Recognizing the multiplicity of development paths of various societies, laying individual routes through bifurcation points, synergetics understands the general historical pattern not as a single path of historical development, but as common principles of “walking” along different historical routes. Thus, synergetics allows us to overcome the limitations of classical approaches in history. It combines the idea of evolutionism with the idea of multivariate historical process. Historical synergetics gives scientific status to the problem of the “historical fate of Russia”, which has been debated for more than a century and a half.
Among modern non-traditional concepts of historical development, the systemic sociocultural theory of our compatriot A.S. deserves special attention. Akhiezer, outlined in his three-volume study “Russia: criticism of historical experience”. It is important to emphasize that the author considers the new systemic view of Russian history from a non-Marxist methodological position and against the general background of the world historical process. The study is not limited to a purely Russian framework, only to modernity, but illuminates both the retrospective and the prospects of world civilization
Traditional ideas for Marxism about the determining role of economic relations, about the leading role of the working class, in general about class relations in the historical process, about exploitation, about surplus value, etc. are not relevant in the system of categories that A. Akhiezer is developing. In fact, the main subject of the author’s research was the sociocultural potential of Russian society. The theory is based on the category of reproduction. For Akhiezer, this category is different from Marxist ideas about simple and expanded production. It acts as a general philosophical category that focuses on the need for constant recreation, restoration and development of all aspects of social existence, focusing on the need to maintain and preserve what has already been achieved. It is in this, according to Akhiezer, that the viability of society is manifested, the ability to avoid social catastrophes, destruction and death of social systems.
The author views culture as the experience of understanding the world created and acquired by a person, and social relations as organizational forms that realize this cultural experience. There is never an identity between culture and social relations. Moreover, an indispensable condition for human life, the life of society, and the course of history is the contradiction between them. The normal process of development of society continues until the contradiction passes a certain point, beyond which the destruction of both culture and social relations begins.
In Russia, the sociocultural contradiction has resulted in such a sharp form as a split. It is in the split that Akhiezer sees the explanation of why historical inertia operates so strongly in Russia. A split is the lack of dialogue between the values and ideals of the bulk of the population, on the one hand, and the ruling, as well as the spiritual elite, on the other, the incompatibility of the semantic fields of different socio-cultural groups. The consequence of the split is a situation where people and society cannot become subjects of their own history. As a result, spontaneous forces operate in it, throwing society from one extreme to another, leading it from catastrophe to catastrophe.
The schism occurs and is reproduced in all spheres of public life, including in the cultural and spiritual spheres. Due to the reproduction of the split, all attempts by the Russian ruling elite to radically change the situation and overcome the split led to nothing. Akhiezer sees the mechanism of the split in the following. In the East, traditional (syncretistic) forms of worldview translate new realities into their own language, i.e. there is a synthesis of traditional and modern cultures, which can become dynamic and not impede development. In the West, new ideals grew from popular soil and the contradictions between the cultural innovations of a liberal society and traditional culture were pushed into the background. In Russia, these contradictions still persist and are even worsening. Coming into contact with traditional ones, new ideals here form not a synthesis, but a hybrid, which often results in the strengthening of their old anti-modernization content. Therefore, every step forward can also become a rollback. The hybrid of liberalism with traditionalism in Russia has shown its limited possibilities, since traditionalism occupied too much of a place in our country. This is the explanation of why in our society the ideals of the past are often defended by full-blooded, integral individuals, while reformers look fragile and wavering. However, the split in Russia is not some inherent attribute of Russian society, but the result of the development of the historical situation. And therefore, despite its centuries-old existence, it is temporary, transitory.
The theory created by A. Akhiezer can also be defined as the theory of transitional social systems. Traditional society (Eastern civilization) is not familiar with the contradictions that plague Russia. Western society (liberal civilization) also successfully avoided them (at least in sharp conflict forms). In this regard, many researchers consider Russia as a special, third mega-civilization - Eurasian. However, the Eurasian civilization is not absolutely unique. This is, rather, a special case of situations common to countries that are late in their development. It is no coincidence that they are called “catching up civilizations.”
A. Akhiezer, thus, moved away from the linear scheme (positivist, pragmatic), which studies historical processes in some fixed general units, and presented us with a voluminous, multidimensional vision of history. The center of his research is the process of reproduction, recrystallization of the sociocultural whole. There appears a view of society not as something linear and progressively developing, but as a living organism capable of changing its characteristics under the influence of external subjective factors. Moreover, this social organism is characterized by repeating cyclical development. The author sees the possibility of stopping such development on the paths of globalization of our internal development, i.e. complete transition to a global civilizational path of development.
Today we observe in science processes of synthesis of sciences based on the development of complex research methods.
All major creative scientific and scientific-technical problems today are solved through the creation of creative and scientific groups, laboratories, research institutes, uniting scientists of different specialties. In the course of joint work on specific projects, a new scientific language common to various sciences is developed and there is an intensive exchange of information accumulated during the period of scientific differentiation. This allows researchers to predict the formation and development of a unified science or a return to the period of undifferentiated science only at a different level.
Since the beginning of the 20th century. There is a growing understanding among philosophers and historians of the relationship and interdependence of various factors interacting in human society. Moreover, at different stages of human development, the role of various factors and their place in the life of an individual and society change.
Thus, in the early stages of human development, biological and geographical factors seem to be decisive, then economic, and finally, in our time, technical and scientific. Modern historical science examines the entire set of factors, their interweaving and interaction. A significant contribution to the formation of this approach was made by representatives of Russian philosophy, one of the founders of scientific sociology P. Sorokin, as well as the historical school “Annals”, which developed mainly in France in 1929 (J. Annaly, as well as the scientist geophysicist Vernadsky, philosopher B. Russell, historian M. Block, etc.) This concept is called the civilizational or cultural approach to history.
Today, the development of this concept continues, moving from the level of scientific hypotheses to the level of curricula for colleges and universities. In accordance with this concept, human history is divided into three main periods: savagery (the period of gathering and hunting), barbarism (the period of agrarian culture), and the period of industrial civilization. Obviously, this periodization is based on the nature of the activities of most people in a given society at a given time. The civilizational approach to history does not deny, but organically includes both chronological and formational approaches. At the same time, there are differences in periodization. They are clearly visible from the table below.
Periodization of world history in various methodological approaches of historical science.
|
Chronological |
Formational |
Civilization |
|
1. ANCIENT WORLD: since ancient times BC |
1. PRIMITIVE COMMUNAL since ancient times up to 3500 BC |
1.WILDLIFE: from > 3 million years BC up to 10 thousand years BC |
|
2. MIDDLE AGES: From the 5th century AD Until the 15th century |
2. SLAVE OWNERSHIP: From 3500 BC until the 5th century AD |
2. BARBARY: 10,000 BC – Mid-18th century |
|
3. NEW TIME: from the 16th century to 1917 |
3.FEUDAL FORMATION: From V to XVI century 3. CAPITALISM: from the 16th century to 1917 |
3. INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATION: End of the 18th century. – 1970s |
|
4. RECENT HISTORY: from 1917 to our days |
4. SOCIALISM: 1917 to present day |
4. POST-INDUSTRIAL CIVILIZATION since the 1970s and the foreseeable future |
|
5.COMMUNISM: not very distant future. |
History is knowable, but in order to reveal the process of development, to comprehend the characteristics of each period, to overcome one-sidedness and subjectivism, it is necessary to have a perfect scientific methodology and possess precise tools. In the study of historical reality in history, as in any other science, scientists are guided both by the general criteria of scientific research and by their own methods of historical research.
The scientific method is understood as a set of various techniques and processes of scientific knowledge, with the help of which one comes to the knowledge of truths. The basis for developing methods is scientific theory. In turn, the methods provide new knowledge, develop and enrich the theory. Often, the establishment of certain facts or the introduction of new research methods is the reason for the abandonment of an old theory.
Most often in historical science two groups of methods are used:
general scientific;
specifically historical.
General scientific methods
General scientific methods are divided into two subgroups:
empirical research methods: observation, measurement, experiment;
theoretical research methods: typology, idealization, method
thought experiment, formalization, modeling, induction, deduction, systems approach, as well as mathematical, axiomatic, historical, logical and other methods. Methods of theoretical research also include a number of modern methods, such as: system-structural and functional analysis, information-entropy method, algorithmization and etc.
In cognitive activity, methods are in dialectical unity, interconnected, complement one another, which makes it possible to ensure the objectivity and truth of the cognitive process.
So, for example, methods classification and typology make it possible to identify classes and groups of similar historical objects, as well as their various types. This selection, as a rule, occurs on the basis of one or several characteristics and therefore does not cover their entire diversity. The exception is classifications carried out by multivariate statistical analysis , in which historical objects are included in a certain group based on the use of a whole set of their characteristics.
In the process of scientific research, the need arises to apply idealization, a special form of mental activity, when in the process of studying a problem, objects with certain ideal properties are mentally formed. This absoluteness of the properties of an ideal object is transferred to reality, and on this basis the patterns of functioning and development of historical objects are determined, their qualitative and formal-quantitative models are built.
Induction is a logical technique for deriving general judgments based on a number of particular observations. It serves as a means of obtaining presumptive judgments-hypotheses, which are then tested and justified. During induction, when in a number of special cases the repeatability of the properties or relationships of historical objects appears, a chain of individual judgments is built, which is confirmed by this repeatability. If there are no facts contradicting the scheme, then such a chain becomes the basis for a more general conclusion (inductive hypothesis).
Induction is closely related to deductive method . They are usually used in combination. The basis of deduction is the transition from general provisions to particular ones and the derivation of the particular and individual from the general. It is constantly resorted to in the process of cognitive activity. Through deduction, any general provision (law) is applied to a particular fact. It is actively used to substantiate hypotheses. Single historical facts can be considered explained if they are included in a certain system of concepts from which they can be obtained deductively. The deductive method underlies the formation of scientific theories. With its help, schematization and idealization of the structure of practical activity is carried out.
If the inductive method is necessary when accumulating material, then the deductive method is necessary in the cognitive process of a theoretical nature. By applying the deduction method to accumulated material, one can obtain new knowledge that goes beyond the boundaries of established empirical facts.
Method is important in historical science modeling - the study of objects of knowledge based on their models that reproduce or reflect these objects. The foundation of the method is the theory of similarity. According to the nature of the models, there is a distinction between subject and sign (information) modeling.
Subject modeling is the study of models that reproduce the geometric, physical, dynamic or functional characteristics of the original object. The basis for this operation is an analogy.
At iconic modeling The models are diagrams, formulas, tables, etc. Its most important type is considered to be mathematical modeling, reproduced by expressive and deductive means of mathematics and logic.
Model- this is a system created or chosen by the researcher that reproduces with a certain accuracy the ascent from the abstract to the concrete, and then the transition from the concrete to the abstract occurs. In this case, the specification can be as detailed as desired. As a result, the general and special things that are inherent in the objects, phenomena and processes being studied are deeply revealed.
This approach is possible when the theoretical level of knowledge of historical objects allows us to construct their abstract, essentially meaningful model. This possibility is not always available. But the study of many historical phenomena has quite reached this level. And then it may be most effective math modeling.
Mathematical methods at the modeling level can also be used in the formation of a system of quantitative indicators. This is important both for checking the reliability and accuracy of quantitative and descriptive information from historical sources and assessing their representativeness, and for solving other information and source studies problems.
The general scientific method has become widely used in historical research. systematic approach. It is based on the study of objects as systems, which makes it possible to reveal their essential nature and principles of functioning and development. The method involves the creation of a number of simplified models that imitate or replace (to a certain extent) the original system. Such models must allow an adequate return transition to the original modeled object without loss of information essential for its understanding.
The systems approach does not exist in the form of a strict methodological concept: it performs heuristic functions, remaining a set of cognitive principles, the main meaning of which is the appropriate orientation of specific studies. Therefore, this approach requires the use of various general scientific methods, including such as ascent from the abstract to the concrete, logical, deductive, as well as quantitative methods.
Specific methods of systems research are structural and functional analyzes aimed at studying the structure of systems and identifying their functions. Comprehensive knowledge of any system requires consideration of its structure and functions in organic unity, i.e. structural and functional analysis.
General scientific methods as such are necessary at the theoretical level of historical science. In relation to specific historical situations, they are used to develop special historical methods, for which they serve as a logical basis.
Methods of other sciences, such as psychology, demography, sociology, geography, mathematics, statistics, are also widely used in history.
Special historical methods.
Special historical methods are a different combination of general scientific methods adapted to the characteristics of the historical objects being studied. Special historical methods include:
Ideographic- description of historical events and phenomena;
Retrospective -consistent penetration into the past in order to identify the cause of an event;
Historical-comparative- comparison of historical objects in space and time;
Historical-typological - classification of historical phenomena, events and objects;
Historical-systemic - disclosure of internal mechanisms of development and
functioning of historical phenomena and objects;
Historical-genetic - analysis of the dynamics of historical processes.
Through historical-genetic The method studies historical phenomena in the process of their development - from origin to destruction or current state. By its logical nature, this method is analytical-inductive (ascending from specific phenomena and facts to general conclusions), and by its form of expressing information it is descriptive. It gives a “biography” of a historical object (state, nation, etc.). The historical-genetic method is aimed at analyzing the dynamics of historical processes. Allows you to identify their cause-and-effect relationships and patterns of historical development. This method is used at the first stage of historical research, when information is extracted from sources, systematized and processed.
Weaknesses of the historical-genetic method: reduced role of theoretical analysis of collected historical facts, lack of a clear logical basis and developed categorical apparatus. This means that the research carried out with its help cannot be brought together and created on their basis a complete picture of historical reality. Consequently, the method is actually not suitable for studying a number of historical phenomena and processes, for example mass ones. It must be used in combination with other special historical methods.
Historical-comparative method consists of comparing historical objects in space and time and identifying similarities and differences between them. The method is focused on the consideration of historical objects in certain time slices and involves the use of various techniques to compare the essence of heterogeneous historical phenomena. Therefore, when applying it, the main attention is concentrated on the statistical position of objects in space and time and in identifying the similarities and differences between them. Through the historical-comparative method, the researcher obtains additional information about little-studied historical objects.
By using historical-typological method identify common features in spatial groups of historical events and phenomena and identify homogeneous stages in their continuous-time development. Typology has the goal of systematizing and ordering objects according to their inherent common characteristics, dividing their aggregates into qualitatively defined types (stages). Typology in form is a type of classification, but in essence it is one of the methods of qualitative analysis.
Currently, the practice of scientific-historical research is becoming increasingly widespread. historical-systemic method. This is due to attempts to reveal the internal mechanisms of their functioning and development. The fact is that all historical events have their own cause and are functionally interconnected, i.e. are systemic in nature. Even simple historical systems have diverse functions, determined both by the structure of the system and its place in the hierarchy of systems. To carry out a system analysis, it is necessary to isolate the system that interests us from the hierarchy of historical realities. This complex process is called decomposition(separation) of the system. When it is implemented, system-forming (systemic) features are identified, usually several of them. These features are interconnected, determine the structure of the system, express its integrity and stability. Having carried out the system decomposition procedure, the researcher performs its structural analysis, which consists of determining the connections of the system elements, as well as their main features. Its result is direct knowledge of the historical system itself.
Diachronic method is typical for structural-diachronic research, when the problem of discovering the features of the construction of processes of various natures over time is solved. Its specificity is revealed through comparison with the synchronistic approach. Terms "diachrony"(multitemporality) and “synchrony” (simultaneity) characterize the sequence of development of historical phenomena in a certain area of reality (diachrony) and the state of these phenomena at a certain point in time (synchrony). Diachronic (multi-temporal) analysis is aimed at studying essentially-temporal changes in historical reality.
Reception retrospective cognition consists of consistent penetration into the past in order to identify the cause of an event.
A significant role in historical research is played by psychological motives, which manifest themselves in two cases: on the one hand, the subject of research (historian) inevitably enters into an emotional relationship with his object, on the other hand, the characters of history with their feelings, emotions, passions participate in economic social political , religious and other relationships, subject to certain psychological laws. Therefore, the emergence of a whole trend in historiography that considers the psychological aspects of the historical process and uses psychological methods for historical explanation turned out to be completely natural. This direction is called psychohistory , traditionally associated with its publication in the first half of the 20th century. works of the Austrian doctor, neurologist and psychiatrist Z. Freud.
They are based on philosophical, general scientific, and are the basis of specific problem-solving methods.
Historical-genetic and retrospective methods. The historical-genetic method is the most common. Aimed at the consistent disclosure of properties, functions and changes in historical reality. According to I. Kovalchenko’s definition, by its logical nature it is analytical, inductive, and by the form of expression of information it is descriptive. It is aimed at identifying cause-and-effect relationships and analyzing the occurrence (genesis) of certain phenomena and processes. Historical events are shown in their individuality and specificity.
When applying this method, some errors are possible, if you take it as an absolute. Focusing on studying the development of phenomena and processes, one cannot underestimate the stability of these phenomena and processes. Further, while showing the individuality and uniqueness of events, one must not lose sight of what is common. Pure empiricism should be avoided.
If the genetic method is directed from the past to the present, then the retrospective method is from the present to the past, from the effect to the cause. Based on the elements of the preserved past, it is possible to reconstruct this past. By going into the past, we can clarify the stages of formation and formation of the phenomenon that we have in the present. What may seem random with a genetic approach, with a retrospective method will seem to be a prerequisite for later events. In the present, we have a more developed object compared to its previous forms and can better understand the process of formation of this or that process. We see the prospect of the development of phenomena and processes in the past, knowing the result. By studying the years preceding the French Revolution of the 18th century, we will obtain certain data about the maturation of the revolution. But if we return to this period, already knowing what happened during the revolution, we will learn the deeper reasons and preconditions of the revolution, which became especially clear during the revolution itself. We will see not individual facts and events, but a coherent, logical chain of phenomena that naturally led to the revolution.
Synchronous, chronological and diachronic methods. The synchronous method is focused on studying different events that occurred at the same time. All phenomena in society are interconnected, and this method, especially often used in a systems approach, helps to reveal this connection. And this will make it possible to clarify the explanation of historical events taking place in a particular region, to trace the influence of economic, political, and international relations of different countries.
In domestic literature, B.F. Porshnev published a book in which he showed the system of states during the English revolution of the mid-17th century. However, to this day this approach is poorly developed in domestic historiography: chronological histories of individual countries predominate. Only recently has an attempt been made to write the history of Europe not as a sum of individual states, but as a certain system of states, to show the mutual influence and interconnection of events.
Chronological method. Every historian uses it - the study of the sequence of historical events in time (chronology). Essential facts must not be overlooked. History is often distorted when historians suppress facts that do not fit into the scheme.
A variant of this method is problem-chronological, when a broad topic is divided into a number of problems, each of which is considered in the chronological sequence of events.
Diachronic method (or periodization method). The qualitative features of processes over time, the moments of formation of new stages and periods are highlighted, the state at the beginning and end of the period is compared, and the general direction of development is determined. In order to identify the qualitative features of periods, it is necessary to clearly define the criteria for periodization, take into account objective conditions and the process itself. You cannot replace one criterion with another. Sometimes it is impossible to accurately name the year or month of the beginning of a new stage - all facets in society are mobile and conditional. It is impossible to fit everything into a strict framework; there is asynchrony of events and processes, and the historian must take this into account. When there are several criteria and different schemes, the historical process is understood more deeply.
Historical-comparative method. Enlightenment scholars began to use the comparative method. F. Voltaire wrote one of the first world histories, but he used comparison more as a technique than a method. At the end of the 19th century, this method became popular, especially in socio-economic history (M. Kovalevsky, G. Maurer wrote works on the community). After the Second World War, the comparative method was especially widely used. Almost no historical study is complete without comparison.
By collecting factual material, comprehending and systematizing the facts, the historian sees that many phenomena can have similar content, but different forms of manifestation in time and space, and, conversely, have different content, but be similar in form. The cognitive significance of the method lies in the possibilities it opens for understanding the essence of phenomena. The essence can be understood by the similarities and differences in the characteristics inherent in phenomena. The logical basis of the method is analogy, when, based on the similarity of some characteristics of an object, a conclusion is drawn about the similarity of others.
The method makes it possible to reveal the essence of phenomena when it is not obvious, to identify common, repeating, and natural patterns, to make generalizations, and to draw historical parallels. A number of requirements must be met. Comparison should be made on specific facts that reflect the essential features of phenomena, and not formal similarities. You need to know the era, the typology of phenomena. You can compare phenomena of the same type and different types, at the same or different stages of development. In one case, the essence will be revealed based on identifying similarities, in the other - differences. The principle of historicism should not be forgotten.
But the use of the comparative method also has some limitations. It helps to understand the diversity of reality, but not the specificity of it in a specific form. It is difficult to apply the method when studying the dynamics of the historical process. Formal application leads to errors, and the essence of many phenomena can be distorted. You need to use this method in combination with others. Unfortunately, only analogy and comparison are often used, and the method, which is much more meaningful and broader than the techniques mentioned, is rarely used in its entirety.
Historical-typological method. Typology - division of objects or phenomena into various types based on essential features, identification of homogeneous sets of objects. I. Kovalchenko considers the typological method to be a method of essential analysis. The formal descriptive classification proposed by the positivists does not give such a result. The subjective approach led to the idea of constructing types only in the thinking of a historian. M. Weber developed the theory of “ideal types”, which for a long time was not used by domestic sociologists, who interpreted it in a simplified manner. In fact, we were talking about modeling, which is now accepted by all researchers.
Types according to I. Kovalchenko are distinguished on the basis of a deductive approach and theoretical analysis. Types and characteristics characterizing qualitative certainty are identified. Then we can classify the object as one type or another. I. Kovalchenko illustrates all this using the example of types of Russian peasant farming. I. Kovalchenko needed such a detailed development of the typology method to justify the use of mathematical methods and computers. A significant part of his book on methods of historical research is devoted to this. We refer the reader to this book.
Historical-systemic method. This method was also developed by I. Kovalchenko in connection with the use of mathematical methods and modeling in historical science. The method is based on the fact that there are socio-historical systems of different levels. The main components of reality: individual and unique phenomena, events, historical situations and processes are considered as social systems. They are all functionally connected. It is necessary to isolate the system under study from the hierarchy of systems. After identifying the system, a structural analysis follows, determining the relationship between the system components and their properties. In this case, logical and mathematical methods are used. The second stage is a functional analysis of the interaction of the system being studied with systems of a higher level (the peasant economy is considered as part of the system of socio-economic relations and as a subsystem of capitalist production). The main difficulty is created by the multi-level nature of social systems, the transition from lower-level systems to higher systems (yard, village, province). When analyzing, for example, a peasant farm, data aggregation provides new opportunities for understanding the essence of phenomena. In this case, all general scientific and special historical methods are used. The method gives the greatest effect with synchronous analysis, but the development process remains undisclosed. System-structural and functional analysis can lead to excessive abstraction and formalization, and sometimes subjective design of systems.
We have named the main methods of historical research. None of them are universal or absolute. They need to be used comprehensively. In addition, both historical methods must be combined with general scientific and philosophical ones. It is necessary to use methods taking into account their capabilities and limits - this will help to avoid mistakes and false conclusions.
METHODOLOGY OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH - 1) theoretical provisions of historical science, which act as a means of discovering new historical facts or are used as a tool for knowing the past [V. V. Kosolapov]; 2) the theoretical basis of concrete historical research [N. A. Mininkov].
The methodology of historical research is a way to solve a scientific problem and achieve its goal - obtaining new historical knowledge. The methodology of historical research as a method of research activity is a system of theoretical knowledge, including goals, objectives, subject, cognitive strategy, methods and techniques for the production of historical knowledge. This system includes knowledge of two types - subject and methodological. Subject theoretical knowledge is the result of specific historical research. This is theoretical knowledge about historical reality. Methodological theoretical knowledge is the result of special scientific research, the subject of which is the research activity of historians. This is theoretical knowledge about the methods of scientific research activities.
Theoretical knowledge of subject and methodological content is included in the structure of the methodology of historical research, provided that it is internalized by the methodological consciousness of the researcher, as a result of which it becomes the design and normative basis of scientific research activities. In the structure of the methodology of historical research, such theoretical knowledge performs the function of cognitive “filters” that mediate the interaction between the subject and the subject of historical research. Such “background” or “extra-source” knowledge is sometimes called patterns, which represent a syncretic unity of the constructive and conceptual. These are “images,” on the one hand, of the subject of historical research, and on the other, of the process of its research itself.
In the structure of the methodology of historical research, the following levels can be distinguished: 1) a model of historical research as a system of normative knowledge that defines the subject area of a specific scientific research, its cognitive strategy, basic principles and cognitive tools; 2) the paradigm of historical research as a model and standard for setting and solving a certain class of research problems, accepted in the scientific community to which the researcher belongs; 3) historical theories related to the subject area of concrete historical research, forming its scientific thesaurus, model of the subject and used as explanatory constructs or understanding concepts; 4) methods of historical research as ways to solve individual research problems.
It is necessary to distinguish between the concept of “methodology of historical research” and the concept of methodology of history as a branch of special scientific research or a scientific discipline formed within the framework of historical science with the aim of theoretically ensuring the effectiveness of historical research conducted in it. The methodology of history as a branch of science, according to the Russian historian of the early 20th century A. S. Lappo-Danilevsky, is divided into two parts: the theory of historical knowledge and the doctrine of methods of historical thinking. In the 20th century, the subject area of methodology as a scientific discipline began to include the principles and methods of historical research, the laws of the process of historical knowledge, as well as such non-methodological issues as the meaning of history, the role of the masses in history, the laws of the historical process. Currently, the methodology of history is considered as a scientific discipline that ensures the organization of the research process in order to obtain new and most reliable knowledge [N. A. Mininkov]. Consequently, the subject of the methodology of history as a scientific discipline is historical research itself.
Isolating historical research as a subject of the methodology of history as a scientific discipline raises important questions: is this research expedient or is it arbitrary, what conditions determine the possibility of obtaining new historical knowledge, whether there is a logic and norms for the historian’s scientific research activity, whether its process is knowable ?
The inner world of a historian always requires a certain freedom of creativity; it is associated with inspiration, intuition, imagination and some other unique mental qualities of a scientist. Therefore, in this respect, historical research as creativity is an art. At the same time, historical research, in order to be scientific, must be carried out in accordance with certain principles and requirements that the scientist must comply with. Therefore, freedom of creativity, “flashes of insight” in historical science inevitably coexist with the scientist’s ideas about the necessary elements of purposeful cognitive activity. Therefore, historical research is not only scientific creativity, but also to a certain extent a craft, that is, a cognitive activity subject to certain normative requirements. Studying these norms, bringing them into a system of purposeful activity, and its theoretical justification makes it possible to exercise conscious control over the process of concrete historical research, constantly improve its practice, as well as transfer the experience of research skills and teach it. This is the immediate practical significance of the methodology of history as a scientific discipline.
A. V. Lubsky
The definition of the concept is quoted from the publication: Theory and methodology of historical science. Terminological dictionary. Rep. ed. A.O. Chubaryan. [M.], 2014, p. 274-277.
Literature:
Kosolapov V.V. Methodology and logic of historical research. Kiev.1977. P. 50; Lappo-Danshevsky A. S. Methodology of history. M, 2006. P. 18; Lubsky A. V. Alternative models of historical research: conceptual interpretation of cognitive practices. Saarbricken, 2010; Mipinkov N. A. Methodology of history: a guide for the beginning researcher. Rostov n / D, 2004. P. 93-94: Smolensky N. I. Theory and methodology of history: textbook. allowance 2nd ed., erased. M., 2008. P. 265.