The historical method owes its existence to such a science as story.
Story- is a science that studies the past of mankind, events and facts of world civilization in their chronological sequence.
Apparently, A. Smith should be considered the first “global” historian.
The main goal of history is the study of individual facts of the past of mankind, as well as their subsequent generalization and the creation of a holistic picture of the process of human development; history can be local, of individual regions, peoples and eras (for example, the history of Russia, the history of Europe, medieval history, etc. ), and global (world historical or general history). Special sections of historical science examine sources (source studies), monuments of material culture of the past (archaeology), etc. History also distinguishes special directions that study the methodology of historical knowledge (methodology of history, methods of historical science) and its philosophy (philosophy of history).
Using the Historical Method goes beyond the boundaries of history itself: it has been adopted by almost every science. Most often it is used in two forms: as a method for studying the history of social institutions that a given science deals with, and how a method of studying the history of knowledge accumulated by a given science. Sometimes these two approaches merge into one - usually this happens in the natural sciences. For example, the history of physics (as well as mathematics, chemistry, biology, etc.) explores de facto both the history of the institutions that generate physical knowledge and the history of this knowledge itself. In other sciences, both methods are separated in different directions: the history of institutions is dealt with by one direction of the discipline, the history of knowledge by another. This situation has developed in economics, law, political sciences, etc. The history of economics and the history of economic doctrines, the history of state and law and the history of political and legal thought, etc. - these are examples of the parallel use of the historical method in the same science.
Thus, the historical method is not only a method of history, but also a universal (universal) method of any other science. However, as we have already noted, it represents only one of two options genetic method- a method of studying processes and phenomena based on the analysis of their development. Where the process of development of any system is studied empirically in its spontaneous, chaotic unfolding in time, we are dealing with the historical method; if we study such development in its logically, and abstracting from particulars, “branches”, “false paths”, in this case our research takes on the character evolutionary method. Evolution in in this case- this is “straightening”
history, identifying the main vector in it as opposed to secondary and lateral directions.
Historical method- This is a method based on the study of any processes in their chronological sequence, spontaneous and chaotic development.
Like any method, the historical method has its advantages and disadvantages. Its main advantage is that it allows one to see the process dialectically, not limiting itself only to the last stage or era. The historical method also allows us to bring the reality under study as close as possible to historical facts, i.e. to empirical facts directly observed by the researcher or any other researchers. True, historians and methodologists do not have a common opinion on what is considered a historical fact. Some believe that a historical fact is something that exists outside the consciousness of the historian and outside his subjective interpretation; others, following L. Febvre and R. Collingwood, believe that the historian, interpreting historical data, himself develops historical facts:
“To establish a fact means to work it out” 1 .
“History is the interpretation of factual data (evidence), Moreover, actual data is a collective name for things that are individually called documents. A document is a thing that exists here and now, a thing of such a kind that a historian, analyzing it, can get answers to the questions posed about past events” 2.
But, if we do not go too deeply into such discrepancies, we can give approximately following definition historical fact.
Historical facts- these are any events of historical reality, directly or indirectly observed and recorded by the subject of historical knowledge.
I.D. Kovalzon points out the existence of three groups of historical facts:
1) facts of historical reality (or “truths of fact” - what directly took place and what all historians agree with);
2) facts from a historical source (“source messages”);
3) scientific and historical facts (“facts-knowledge”) 3.
2 Collingwood R. Story idea. Autobiography. M., 1980. P. 13.
3 Kovalzon I.D. Methods historical research. M., 1987. P. 130.
Historical facts form the basis for the application of the historical method. But among all these three groups of facts, scientific and historical facts are, of course, of greatest importance. It can even be said that the facts of historical reality and the facts of the source play the role of “plasticine” from which each historian molds “scientific and historical facts” in his own value-normative interpretation.
“A scientific-historical fact is, on the whole, a doubly subjective representation of the past.”
Focus on the use of scientific historical facts makes the historical method scientific, and history - not a simple description of the past, but a social science seeking to develop a rational and evidential picture of the past. Many difficulties and problems await historians along this path, and along with its undeniable advantages, the historical method also has significant disadvantages.
A very interesting classification and description of them was proposed by the Italian historian and philosopher of the Enlightenment, Giambattista Vico (1668-1744). In his essay “Foundations of a New Science of the General Nature of Nations” (1725), he pointed out five main shortcomings of the historical method:
1) an exaggerated idea of the ancients, including their capabilities and abilities;
2) vanity of nations (each nation tends to exaggerate its role and significance in history and underestimate the role and significance of other nations);
3) the vanity of scholar-historians (every scholar-historian puts himself above any historical figure - be it an emperor, a commander or an outstanding political figure);
4) errors in the sources (for example, if two peoples or states developed the same social institution in parallel, then it must be assumed that there was borrowing);
5) that supposedly past peoples or individuals were better informed about the times close to them than we are.
However, apparently, these are only a few of those problematic situations for scientific research that the hypertrophy of the historical method can lead to. It should be only one of the methods for studying social reality and is unlikely to claim the status of a leading method.
Kovalzon I.D. Decree. op. WITH. 130.
Regarding economic science, the warning of J.N. remains very relevant. Keynes:
“But the strongest objections to the primacy of the historical method arise when it is understood literally as a requirement to limit oneself to the facts of the past. It is obvious that the purely historical method is much narrower than the inductive method; and hardly anyone will deny that facts essential to the economist in very many cases are obtained from observations of the present or from equally fresh data of the past, which have not yet been able to enter into what we mean by economic history” 1 .
After such a serious warning about the limitations of the historical method, it is time to turn to an analysis of its use in economics.
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. She develops the conceptual framework of science, general techniques and standards for obtaining knowledge about the past, deals with 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 knowledge: 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 implies the need to evaluate historical processes not from the standpoint of experience today, 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 driving forces historical process and 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 the 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 leads to political power new class. 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, including 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 political, in others it is religious, and in others it is cultural. 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 special attention deserves the systemic sociocultural theory of our compatriot A.S. 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, focusing 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 human life, the life of society, 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 an explanation for 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, which moves from the level of scientific hypotheses to the level 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. |
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND YOUTH POLICY
KHANTY-MANSI AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT - YUGRA
State educational institution
higher professional education
Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug - Ugra
"Surgut State Pedagogical University"
BASIC METHODS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Abstract
Completed by: Vorobyova E.V. group B-3071,IVGFS course Checked by: Medvedev V.V.
Surgut
2017
CONTENT
INTRODUCTION
A modern historian faces the difficult task of developing a research methodology, which should be based on knowledge and understanding of the capabilities of existing methods in historical science, as well as a balanced assessment of their usefulness, effectiveness, and reliability.
In Russian philosophy, there are three levels of scientific methods: general, general, and particular. The division is based on the degree of regulation of cognitive processes.
Universal methods include philosophical methods that are used as the basis for all cognitive procedures and allow one to explain all processes and phenomena in nature, society and thinking.
General methods are used at all stages of the cognitive process (empirical and theoretical) and by all sciences. At the same time, they are focused on understanding individual aspects of the phenomenon being studied.
The third group is private methods. These include methods of a specific science - for example, physical or biological experiment, observation, mathematical programming, descriptive and genetic methods in geology, comparative analysis in linguistics, measurement methods in chemistry, physics, etc.
Particular methods are directly related to the subject of science and reflect its specificity. Each science develops its own system of methods, which develops and is supplemented by related disciplines along with the development of science. This is also characteristic of history, where, along with the traditionally established methods of source study and historiographic analysis based on logical operations, methods of statistics, mathematical modeling, mapping, observation, survey, etc. began to be used.
Within the framework of a specific science, the main methods are also identified - basic for this science (in history these are historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological, historical-systemic, historical-dynamic) and helper methods, with the help of which its individual, private problems are solved.
In the process of scientific research, general, general and particular methods interact and form a single whole - a methodology. The universal method used reveals the most general principles human thinking. General methods make it possible to accumulate and analyze the necessary material, as well as give the obtained scientific results - knowledge and facts - a logically consistent form. Particular methods are designed to solve specific issues that reveal individual aspects of a cognizable subject.
1. GENERAL SCIENTIFIC METHODS OF KNOWLEDGE
General scientific methods include observation and experiment, analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, analogy and hypothesis, logical and historical, modeling, etc.
Observation and experiment belong to the general scientific methods of cognition, especially widely used in natural sciences. By observation we mean perception, living contemplation, directed by a specific task without direct interference with the natural course in natural conditions. Essential condition scientific observation are the putting forward of one or another hypothesis, idea, proposal .
An experiment is a study of an object when the researcher actively influences it by creating artificial conditions necessary to identify certain properties, or by changing the course of the process in a given direction.
Human cognitive activity, aimed at revealing the essential properties, relationships and connections of objects, first of all selects from the totality of observed facts those that are involved in his practical activity. A person mentally, as it were, dismembers an object into its constituent aspects, properties, parts. Studying, for example, a tree, a person identifies different parts and sides in it; trunk, roots, branches, leaves, color, shape, size, etc. Understanding a phenomenon by breaking it down into its components is called analysis. In other words, analysis as a method of thinking is the mental decomposition of an object into its constituent parts and sides, which gives a person the opportunity to separate objects or any of their aspects from those random and transitory connections in which they are given to him in perception. Without analysis, no knowledge is possible, although analysis does not yet highlight the connections between the parties and properties of phenomena. The latter are established by synthesis. Synthesis is a mental unification of elements dissected by analysis .
A person mentally decomposes an object into its component parts in order to discover these parts themselves, in order to find out what the whole consists of, and then considers it as composed of these parts, but already examined separately.
Only gradually comprehending what happens to objects when performing practical actions with them, did a person begin to mentally analyze and synthesize the thing. Analysis and synthesis are the main methods of thinking, because the processes of connection and separation, creation and destruction form the basis of all processes in the world and practical human activity.
Induction and deduction. As a research method, induction can be defined as the process of deriving a general proposition from the observation of a number of individual facts. On the contrary, deduction is a process of analytical reasoning from the general to the specific. The inductive method of cognition, which requires going from facts to laws, is dictated by the very nature of the cognizable object: in it the general exists in unity with the individual, the particular. Therefore, in order to comprehend the general pattern, it is necessary to study individual things and processes.
Induction is only a moment of movement of thought. It is closely related to deduction: any single object can be comprehended only by being included in the system of concepts already existing in your consciousness .
The objective basis of the historical and logical methods of cognition is the real history of the development of the cognizable object in all its concrete diversity and the main, leading tendency, pattern of this development. Thus, the history of human development represents the dynamics of life of all peoples of our planet. Each of them has its own unique history, its own characteristics, which are expressed in everyday life, morals, psychology, language, culture, etc. World history- This is an endlessly motley picture of the life of humanity in different eras and countries. Here we have the necessary, the accidental, the essential, the secondary, the unique, the similar, the individual, and the general. . But, despite this endless variety of life paths of different peoples, their history has something in common. All peoples, as a rule, went through the same socio-economic formations. The commonality of human life is manifested in all areas: economic, social, and spiritual. It is this commonality that expresses the objective logic of history. The historical method involves the study of a specific development process, and the logical method is the study of the general patterns of movement of the object of knowledge. The logical method is nothing more than the same historical method, only freed from its historical form and from the accidents that violate it.
The essence of the modeling method is to reproduce the properties of an object on a specially designed analogue of it - a model. A model is a conventional image of an object. Although any modeling coarsens and simplifies the object of knowledge, it serves as an important auxiliary means of research. It makes it possible to study processes characteristic of the original, in the absence of the original itself, which is often necessary due to the inconvenience or impossibility of studying the object itself .
General scientific methods of cognition do not replace specific scientific methods of research; on the contrary, they are refracted in the latter and are in dialectical unity with them. Together with them they perform common task– reflection of the objective world in human consciousness. General scientific methods significantly deepen knowledge and make it possible to reveal more general properties and patterns of reality.
2. SPECIAL METHODS OF HISTORICAL RESEARCH
Special historical, or general historical, research methods represent one or another combination of general scientific methods aimed at studying the object of historical knowledge, i.e. taking into account the features of this object, expressed in the general theory of historical knowledge .
The following special historical methods have been developed: genetic, comparative, typological, systemic, retrospective, reconstructive, actualization, periodization, synchronous, diachronic, biographical. Methods related to auxiliary historical disciplines are also used - archaeology, genealogy, heraldry, historical geography, historical onomastics, metrology, numismatics, paleography, sphragistics, phaleristics, chronology, etc.
The main general historical methods of scientific research include: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological and historical-systemic.
Historical-genetic method is one of the most common in historical research. Its essence lies in the consistent disclosure of the properties, functions and changes of the reality being studied in the process of its historical movement, which allows us to come closest to reproducing real story object. This object is reflected in the most concrete form. Cognition proceeds sequentially from the individual to the particular, and then to the general and universal. By its logical nature, the historical-genetic method is analytical-inductive, and by its form of expressing information about the reality under study, it is descriptive .
The specificity of this method is not in the design ideal images object, but in generalizing factual historical data towards recreating a general scientific picture of the social process. Its application allows us to understand not only the sequence of events in time, but also the general dynamics of the social process.
The limitations of this method are the lack of attention to statics, i.e. to fix a certain temporal reality of historical phenomena and processes, the danger of relativism may arise. In addition, he “gravitates towards descriptiveness, factualism and empiricism. Finally, the historical-genetic method, despite its long history and breadth of application, does not have a developed and clear logic and conceptual apparatus. Therefore, its methodology, and therefore the technique, is vague and uncertain, which makes it difficult to compare and bring together the results of individual studies .
Idiographic method was proposed by G. Rickert as the main method of history . G. Rickert reduced the essence of the idiographic method to the description of individual characteristics, unique and exceptional features of historical facts, which are formed by a scientist-historian on the basis of their “attribution to value.” In his opinion, history individualizes events, distinguishing them from the infinite variety of so-called. “historical individual”, which meant both the nation and the state, a separate historical personality .
Based on the idiographic method, it is appliedideographic method - a method of unambiguously recording concepts and their connections using signs, or a descriptive method. The idea of the ideographic method goes back to Lullio and Leibniz .
Historical-genetic method is close to the ideographic method, especially when used at the first stage of historical research, when information is extracted from sources, systematized and processed. Then the researcher’s attention is focused on individual historical facts and phenomena, on their description as opposed to identifying developmental features .
Cognitive functionscomparative historical method :
Identification of features in phenomena of different order, their comparison, juxtaposition;
Clarification of the historical sequence of the genetic connection of phenomena, establishment of their generic connections and relationships in the process of development, establishment of differences in phenomena;
Generalization, construction of a typology of social processes and phenomena. Thus, this method is broader and more meaningful than comparisons and analogies. The latter do not act as a special method of historical science. They can be used in history, as in other areas of knowledge, and regardless of the comparative historical method.
In general, the historical-comparative method has broad cognitive capabilities .
Firstly, it allows us to reveal the essence of the phenomena under study in cases where it is not obvious, based on the available facts; to identify the general and repetitive, the necessary and natural, on the one hand, and qualitatively different, on the other. Thus, the gaps are filled and the research is brought to a complete form.
Secondly, the historical-comparative method makes it possible to go beyond the phenomena being studied and, on the basis of analogies, to arrive at broad historical generalizations and parallels.
Thirdly, it allows the use of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method.
The successful application of the historical-comparative method, like any other, requires compliance with a number of methodological requirements. First of all, comparison should be based on specific facts that reflect the essential features of phenomena, and not their formal similarity.
You can compare objects and phenomena, both of the same type and of different types, located at the same and at different stages of development. But in one case the essence will be revealed on the basis of identifying similarities, in the other - differences. Compliance with the specified conditions for historical comparisons essentially means consistent application of the principle of historicism.
Identifying the significance of the features on the basis of which a historical-comparative analysis should be carried out, as well as the typology and stage nature of the phenomena being compared, most often requires special research efforts and the use of other general historical methods, primarily historical-typological and historical-systemic. Combined with these methods, the historical-comparative method is a powerful tool in historical research. But this method, naturally, has a certain range of the most effective action. This is, first of all, the study of socio-historical development in broad spatial and temporal aspects, as well as those less broad phenomena and processes, the essence of which cannot be revealed through direct analysis due to their complexity, inconsistency and incompleteness, as well as gaps in specific historical data .
The historical-comparative method has certain limitations, and the difficulties of its application should also be taken into account. This method is not generally aimed at revealing the reality in question. Through it, one learns, first of all, the fundamental essence of reality in all its diversity, and not its specific specificity. It is difficult to use the historical-comparative method when studying the dynamics of social processes. The formal application of the historical-comparative method is fraught with erroneous conclusions and observations .
Historical-typological method. Both the identification of the general in the spatially singular and the identification of the stage-homogeneous in the continuous-temporal require special cognitive means. Such a tool is the method of historical-typological analysis. Typology as a method of scientific knowledge has as its goal the division (ordering) of a set of objects or phenomena into qualitatively defined types (classes) based on their common essential features. Typologization, being a type of classification in form, is a method of essential analysis .
Identifying the qualitative certainty of the set of objects and phenomena under consideration is necessary to identify the types that form this set, and knowledge of the essential nature of the types is an indispensable condition for determining those basic features that are inherent in these types and which can be the basis for a specific typological analysis, i.e. to reveal the typological structure of the reality under study.
The principles of the typological method can only be effectively applied based on a deductive approach . It consists in the fact that the corresponding types are identified on the basis of a theoretical essential-substantive analysis of the considered set of objects. The result of the analysis should be not only the definition of qualitatively different types, but also the identification of those specific features that characterize their qualitative certainty. This creates the opportunity to attribute each separate object to one type or another.
The selection of specific features for typology can be multivariate. This dictates the need to use both a combined deductive-inductive and the inductive approach when typologizing. The essence of the deductive-inductive approach is that the types of objects are determined on the basis of an essential-substantive analysis of the phenomena under consideration, and those essential features that are inherent in them are determined by analyzing empirical data about these objects .
The inductive approach differs in that here both the identification of types and the identification of their most characteristic features are based on the analysis of empirical data. This path has to be followed in cases where the manifestations of the individual in the particular and the particular in general are diverse and unstable.
In cognitive terms, the most effective typification is that it allows not only to identify the corresponding types, but also to establish both the degree to which objects belong to these types and the degree of their similarity to other types. This requires methods of multidimensional typology.
Its use brings the greatest scientific effect when studying homogeneous phenomena and processes, although the scope of the method is not limited to them. In the study of both homogeneous and heterogeneous types, it is equally important that the objects being studied are comparable in terms of the fact that is fundamental for this typification, in terms of the most characteristic features, underlying the historical typology .
Historical-systemic method is based on a systems approach. The objective basis of the systematic approach and method of scientific knowledge is the unity in the socio-historical development of the individual (individual), the special and the general. This unity is real and concrete and appears in socio-historical systems. different levels .
Individual events have certain features unique to them that are not repeated in other events. But these events form certain types and kinds of human activity and relationships, and, therefore, along with individual ones, they also have common features and thereby create certain aggregates with properties that go beyond the individual, i.e. certain systems.
Individual events are included in social systems and through historical situations. A historical situation is a spatio-temporal set of events that form a qualitatively defined state of activity and relationships, i.e. it is the same social system.
Finally, the historical process in its temporal extent has qualitatively different stages or stages, which include a certain set of events and situations that make up subsystems in the overall dynamic system of social development .
The systemic nature of socio-historical development means that all events, situations and processes of this development are not only causally determined and have a cause-and-effect relationship, but are also functionally connected. Functional connections seem to overlap cause-and-effect relationships, on the one hand, and are complex in nature, on the other. On this basis, it is believed that in scientific knowledge the decisive significance should be not a causal, but a structural-functional explanation .
Systematic approach and system methods analysis, which includes structural and functional analyses, is characterized by integrity and complexity. The system being studied is considered not from the perspective of its individual aspects and properties, but as a holistic qualitative certainty with a comprehensive account of both its own main features and its place and role in the hierarchy of systems. However for practical implementation This analysis initially requires the isolation of the system under study from an organically unified hierarchy of systems. This procedure is called systems decomposition. It represents a complex cognitive process, because it is often very difficult to isolate a specific system from the unity of systems .
The isolation of the system should be carried out on the basis of identifying a set of objects (elements) that have qualitative certainty, expressed not simply in certain properties of these elements, but also, first of all, in their inherent relationships, in their characteristic system of interconnections. The isolation of the system under study from the hierarchy of systems must be justified. In this case, methods of historical and typological analysis can be widely used.
From a specific content point of view, the solution to this problem comes down to identifying the system-forming (system) features inherent in the components of the selected system.
After identifying the corresponding system, its analysis as such follows. Central here is structural analysis, i.e. identifying the nature of the relationship between the components of the system and their properties, the result of the structural-system analysis will be knowledge about the system as such. This knowledge is empirical in nature, because it in itself does not reveal the essential nature of the identified structure. Translating the acquired knowledge to the theoretical level requires identifying the functions of a given system in the hierarchy of systems, where it appears as a subsystem. This problem is solved by functional analysis, revealing the interaction of the system under study with systems more high level .
Only a combination of structural and functional analysis allows us to understand the essential nature of the system in all its depth. System-functional analysis makes it possible to identify which properties of the environment, i.e. systems of a higher level, including the system under study as one of the subsystems, determine the essential and meaningful nature of this system .
The disadvantage of this method is its use only in synchronous analysis, which risks not revealing the development process. Another drawback is the danger of excessive abstraction - formalization of the reality being studied.
Retrospective method . A distinctive feature of this method is its focus from the present to the past, from effect to cause. In its content, the retrospective method acts, first of all, as a reconstruction technique that allows you to synthesize and correct knowledge about general character development of phenomena .
The method of retrospective cognition consists of sequential penetration into the past in order to identify the cause of a given event. In this case, we are talking about the root cause directly related to this event, and not about its distant historical roots. Retro-analysis shows, for example, that the root cause of domestic bureaucracy lies in the Soviet party-state system, although they tried to find it in Nicholas’s Russia, and in Peter’s transformations, and in the administrative red tape of the Muscovite kingdom. If during retrospection the path of knowledge is a movement from the present to the past, then when constructing a historical explanation - from the past to the present in accordance with the principle of diachrony .
A number of special historical methods are associated with the category of historical time.These are methods of actualization, periodization, synchronous and diachronic (or problem-chronological).
The first step in the work of a historian is to compile a chronology. The second step is periodization. The historian cuts history into periods, replacing the elusive continuity of time with some kind of signifying structure. The relationships of discontinuity and continuity are revealed: continuity occurs within periods, discontinuity occurs between periods.
To periodize, therefore, means to identify discontinuities, violations of continuity, to indicate what exactly is changing, to date these changes and to give them a preliminary definition. Periodization deals with the identification of continuity and its disruptions. It opens the way to interpretation. It makes history, if not entirely understandable, then at least already conceivable.
The historian does not reconstruct time in its entirety for each new study: he takes the time on which other historians have already worked, the periodization of which is available. Since the question asked acquires legitimacy only as a result of its inclusion in the research field, the historian cannot abstract from previous periodizations: after all, they constitute the language of the profession.
The diachronic method is characteristic of structural-diachronic research, which is a special type research activities, when the problem of identifying the features of the construction of processes of various natures over time is solved. Its specificity is revealed through comparison with the synchronistic approach. The terms “diachrony” (multi-temporality) and “synchrony” (simultaneity), introduced into linguistics by the Swiss linguist F. de Saussure, characterize the sequence of development of historical phenomena in a certain area of reality (diachrony) and the state of these phenomena at a certain point in time (synchrony) .
Diachronic (multi-temporal) analysis is aimed at studying the essential-temporal changes in historical reality. With its help, you can answer questions about when this or that state may occur during the process being studied, how long it will persist, how long it will take this or that historical event, phenomenon, process .
CONCLUSION
Methods of scientific knowledge are a set of techniques, norms, rules and procedures governing research, and providing a solution to the research problem. The scientific method is a way of searching for answers to scientifically posed questions and at the same time a way of posing such questions, formulated in the form of scientific problems. Thus, the scientific method is a way of obtaining new information to solve scientific problems.
History as a subject and science is based on historical methodology. If in many other scientific disciplines there are two main methods of knowledge, namely observation and experiment, then for history only the first method is available. Even though every true scientist tries to minimize the impact on the object of observation, he still interprets what he sees in his own way. Depending on the methodological approaches used by scientists, the world receives various interpretations the same event, various teachings, schools, and so on.
The use of scientific methods of cognition distinguishes historical science in such areas as historical memory, historical consciousness and historical knowledge, of course, provided that the use of these methods is correct.
LIST OF SOURCES USED
Barg M.A. Categories and methods of historical science. - M., 1984
Bocharov A.V. Basic methods of historical research: Tutorial. - Tomsk: Tomsky state university, 2006. 190 p.
Grushin B.A. Essays on the logic of historical research.-M., 1961
Ivanov V.V. Methodology of historical science. - M., 1985
Bocharov A.V. Basic methods of historical research: Textbook. - Tomsk: Tomsk State University, 2006. 190 p.
Positivists believed that scientific methods are the same for the natural and human sciences. Neo-Kantians contrasted the method of history with the method of the natural sciences. In reality, everything is more complicated: there are general scientific methods used in all sciences, and there are specific methods of a particular science or complex of sciences. I. Kovalchenko spoke most thoroughly in Russian historical literature about the use of general scientific methods in his book on methods of historical research. We will not characterize these methods in detail from a philosophical point of view, but will only show the specifics of their application in historical science.
Logical and historical method. History uses synchrony, the study of an object in space as a system, their structure and functions (logical method) and the study of objects in time - diachrony (historical method). Both methods can appear in their pure form and in unity. As a result, we study the subject in space and time. The logical method is provided by a systems approach and structural-functional analysis.
The historical method implements the principle of historicism, which was discussed above. The development process is studied through analysis of the state of the object in different time slices. First an analysis of structure and function, then a historical analysis. These two methods cannot be separated.
I. Kovalchenko gives an example. If we use only the historical method, we can conclude that in agriculture Russia at the beginning of the 20th century was dominated by semi-serf relations. But if we add a logical analysis - a systemic-structural one - it turns out that bourgeois relations dominated.
Ascent from the concrete to the abstract and from the abstract to the concrete. I. Kovalchenko considers this method the most important and decisive. The concrete is the object of knowledge in all its richness and diversity of its inherent features. Abstraction is a mental distraction from some features and properties of the concrete, while it must reflect the essential aspects of reality.
The ascent from the concrete to the abstract is carried out in three ways. Through abstraction (certain properties are considered in isolation from other properties of the object, or a set of characteristics of the object is isolated and it is possible to build essentially substantive and formal-quantitative models).
The second technique is abstraction through identification of the non-identical: states and characteristics that it does not possess are attributed to the object. It is used for various types of classifications and typology.
The third technique is idealization - an object with certain ideal properties is formed. They are inherent in the object, but are not sufficiently expressed. This allows for deductive-integral modeling. Abstraction helps to better understand the essence of an object.
But in order to understand the essence of concrete phenomena, a second stage is necessary - the ascent from the abstract to the concrete. Concrete theoretical knowledge appears in the form scientific concepts, laws, theories. The credit for developing this method goes to K. Marx (“Capital”). This method is complex and, according to I. Kovalchenko, is not widely used.
Systems approach and systems analysis. A system is, as already noted, an integral set of elements of reality, the interaction of which leads to the emergence of new integrative qualities that are not inherent in the elements that form it. Each system has structure, structure and functions. System components - subsystems and elements. Social systems have a complex structure, which a historian must study. The systems approach helps to understand the laws of functioning of social systems. The leading method is structural-functional analysis.
Foreign science has accumulated extensive experience in the application of systems analysis in history. Domestic researchers note the following disadvantages in the use of new methods. The interaction of the system with the environment is often ignored. The basis of all social structures are subconscious-mental structures that are highly stable; as a result, the structure turns out to be unchanged. Finally, the hierarchy of structures is denied, and society turns out to be a disordered collection of closed and unchanging structures. The tendency towards synchronous static study often leads to the rejection of dynamic diachronic analysis.
Induction - deduction. Induction is a study from the individual to the general. Deduction - from the general to the particular, the individual. The historian examines the facts and comes to a generalized concept and, conversely, applies the concepts known to him to explain the facts. Every fact has elements of commonality. At first it is merged with a single fact, then it stands out as such. F. Bacon considered induction to be the main method, since deductive conclusions are often erroneous. Historians in the 19th century used mainly the inductive method. Some people are still suspicious of the deductive method. D. Elton believes that the use of theories from sources other than empirical material can be detrimental to science. However, this extreme point of view is not shared by most historians. To get to the essence of phenomena, you need to use concepts and theories, including those from related sciences. Induction and deduction are organically connected and complement each other.
Analysis and synthesis. Also widely used by historians. Analysis is the isolation of individual aspects of an object, the decomposition of the whole into individual elements. The historian cannot cover as a whole the period or object of study he is studying. Having studied individual aspects and factors, the historian must combine elements of knowledge obtained about individual aspects of historical reality, and the concepts obtained during the analysis are combined into a single whole. Moreover, synthesis in history is not a simple mechanical addition of individual elements, it gives a qualitative leap in understanding the object of study.
The idea of “historical synthesis” was developed by A. Burr. He created the Journal of Historical Synthesis at the beginning of the 20th century and the International Center for Synthesis, which united historians, sociologists and representatives of the natural and mathematical sciences of several countries. He advocated cultural-historical synthesis, the merging of history and sociology, and the use of the achievements of psychology and anthropology. About a hundred monographs by different historians were published in the series “The Evolution of Humanity. Collective synthesis." The focus is on social and mental life. But priority is given to psychology. A. Burr, in fact, prepared the emergence of the “Annals School,” but the latter, after World War II, went further than him in search of synthesis.
Each philosophical direction offered its own basis for synthesis, but so far the factors were shuffled in a positivist spirit. Recently, the idea of synthesis based on culture in the postmodern sense has emerged. We should wait for concrete historical work in this direction.
One thing is clear: analysis and synthesis are inextricably linked. Advances in analysis will not be meaningful if they are not in synthesis. Synthesis will give a new impetus to analysis, which, in turn, will lead to a new synthesis. There have been successes in achieving synthesis, but they are private and short-term in nature; sometimes material and sometimes ideal factors are put forward as determining ones, but there is no unity among historians. The larger the subject of research, the more difficult it is to obtain a synthesis.
Modeling. This is the most common form of scientific activity. All sciences use models to obtain information about the phenomenon being modeled, test hypotheses, and develop theory. Historians also use this technique. Modeling of a historical phenomenon is carried out by means of logical design - mental models of a content-functional plan are created. Modeling involves some simplification, idealization and abstraction. It allows you to check the representativeness of information from sources, the reliability of facts, and test hypotheses and theories. This method is used at all stages of the study. An example might be given of community studies. When creating its model, data from sociology, law, psychology are used, and mentality is taken into account. This already means taking an interdisciplinary approach. At the same time, we must remember that it is impossible to simply transfer a model from another discipline; it must be reconstructed taking into account conceptual constructs.
There is mathematical modeling. Methods of nonlinear dynamics, mathematical chaos theory, and catastrophe theory are used. The construction of statistical models will be discussed in the section on mathematical methods in history.
Intuition. It is well known that scientists often use intuition to solve scientific problems. This unexpected solution is then tested scientifically. In history, at the end of the 19th century, V. Dilthey, classifying history as the sciences of the spirit, considered the historian’s intuition as the main method for understanding historical events. But this point of view was not shared by many historians, since it destroyed history as a science, preaching extreme subjectivism. What kind of truth could one talk about, relying only on the intuition of historians of very different erudition and abilities? Objective research methods were needed.
But this does not mean that intuition does not play a serious role in scientific research. For a historian, it is based on deep knowledge of his subject, broad erudition, and the ability to apply one or another method in a timely manner. Without knowledge, no intuition will “work”. But, of course, talent is needed for “insight” to come. This speeds up the work of the historian and helps create outstanding works.
With all the variety of research approaches, there are certain general research principles, such as systematicity, objectivity, and historicism.
The methodology of historical research is the technique by which methodology is implemented in historical research.
In Italy, during the Renaissance, a scientific research apparatus began to take shape, and a system of footnotes was first introduced.
In the process of processing specific historical material, the researcher needs to use various research methods. The word “method” translated from Greek means “way, way.” Methods of scientific research are ways of obtaining scientific information in order to establish regular connections, relationships, dependencies and construct scientific theories. Research methods are the most dynamic element of science.
Any scientific-cognitive process consists of three components: the object of knowledge - the past, the knowing subject - the historian, and the method of knowledge. Through the method, the scientist understands the problem, event, era being studied. The volume and depth of new knowledge depend, first of all, on the effectiveness of the methods used. Of course, each method can be applied correctly or incorrectly, i.e. the method itself does not guarantee the acquisition of new knowledge, but without it no knowledge is possible. Therefore, one of the most important indicators of the level of development of historical science is research methods, their diversity and cognitive effectiveness.
There are many classifications of scientific research methods.
One of the common classifications involves dividing them into three groups: general scientific, special and special scientific:
- general scientific methods used in all sciences. These are mainly methods and techniques of formal logic, such as: analysis, synthesis, deduction, induction, hypothesis, analogy, modeling, dialectics, etc.;
- special methods used in many sciences. The most common ones include: functional approach, systematic approach, structural approach, sociological and statistical methods. The use of these methods allows us to more deeply and reliably reconstruct the picture of the past and systematize historical knowledge;
- private scientific methods have not universal, but applied significance and are used only in specific science.
In historical science, one of the most authoritative in Russian historiography is the classification proposed in the 1980s. Academician I.D. Kovalchenko. The author has been fruitfully studying this problem for more than 30 years. His monograph “Methods of Historical Research” is a major work, which for the first time in Russian literature provides a systematic presentation of the basic methods of historical knowledge. Moreover, this is done in organic connection with the analysis of the main problems of historical methodology: the role of theory and methodology in scientific knowledge, the place of history in the system of sciences, historical source and historical fact, structure and levels of historical research, methods of historical science, etc. Among the main methods of historical knowledge Kovalchenko I.D. refers:
- historical-genetic;
- historical-comparative;
- historical-typological;
- historical-systemic.
Let's consider each of these methods separately.
Historical-genetic method is one of the most common in historical research. Its essence lies in the consistent disclosure of the properties, functions and changes of the reality being studied in the process of its historical movement. This method allows you to come closest to reproducing the real history of the research object. In this case, the historical phenomenon is reflected in the most concrete form. Cognition proceeds sequentially from the individual to the particular, and then to the general and universal. By nature, the genetic method is analytical-inductive, and in the form of expressing information it is descriptive. The genetic method makes it possible to show cause-and-effect relationships, patterns of historical development in their immediacy, and to characterize historical events and personalities in their individuality and imagery.
Historical-comparative method has also long been used in historical research. It is based on comparisons - an important method of scientific knowledge. Not a single scientific study is complete without comparison. The objective basis for comparison is that the past is a repeating, internally determined process. Many phenomena are identical or similar internally
their essence and differ only in spatial or temporal variation of forms. And the same or similar forms can express different content. Therefore, in the process of comparison, the opportunity opens up to explain historical facts and reveal their essence.
This feature of the comparative method was first embodied by the ancient Greek historian Plutarch in his “biographies.” A. Toynbee sought to discover as many laws as possible that applied to any society, and sought to compare everything. It turned out that Peter I was Akhenaten’s double, the era of Bismarck was a repetition of the era of Sparta during the time of King Cleomenes. A condition for the productive use of the comparative historical method is the analysis of single-order events and processes.
- 1. Initial stage comparative analysis is analogy. It does not involve analysis, but the transfer of ideas from object to object. (Bismarck and Garibaldi played prominent roles in unifying their countries).
- 2. Identification of the essential and content characteristics of what is being studied.
- 3. Reception of typology (Prussian and American type of development of capitalism in agriculture).
The comparative method is also used as a means of developing and verifying hypotheses. On its basis it is possible retroalternative-vistics. History as a retro-story assumes the ability to move in time in two directions: from the present and its problems (and at the same time the experience accumulated up to this time) to the past, and from the beginning of the event to its ending. This introduces into history the search for causality, an element of stability and strength that should not be underestimated: the end point is given, and the historian starts from there in his work. This does not eliminate the risk of delusional constructs, but at least it is minimized. The history of an event is actually a completed social experiment. It can be observed from indirect evidence, hypotheses can be built, and they can be tested. A historian can offer all kinds of interpretations of the French Revolution, but in any case, all his explanations have a common invariant to which they must be reduced: the revolution itself. So the flight of fancy has to be restrained. In this case, the comparative method is used as a means of developing and verifying hypotheses. Otherwise, this technique is called retro-alternativeism. Imagining a different development of history is the only way to find the reasons for the real history. Raymond Aron called for rational weighing possible reasons certain events by comparing what was possible: “If I say that Bismarck’s decision became the cause of the war of 1866... then I mean that without the chancellor’s decision the war would not have started (or at least would not have started at that moment)" 1. Actual causation is revealed only by comparison with what was possible. Any historian, in order to explain what was, asks the question of what could have been. To carry out such a gradation, we take one of these antecedents, mentally consider it non-existent or modified, and try to reconstruct or imagine what would have happened in this case. If you have to admit that the phenomenon under study would have been different in the absence of this factor (or in the event that it were not so), we conclude that this antecedent is one of the causes of some part of the phenomenon-effect, namely that part of it. parts in which we had to assume changes. Thus, logical research includes the following operations: 1) division of the phenomenon-consequence; 2) establishing a gradation of antecedents and identifying the antecedent whose influence we have to evaluate; 3) constructing a surreal course of events; 4) comparison between speculative and real events.
If, when examining the causes of the Great French Revolution, we want to weigh the importance of various economic (the crisis of the French economy at the end of the 18th century, the poor harvest of 1788), social (the rise of the bourgeoisie, the reaction of the nobility), and political (the financial crisis of the monarchy, the resignation of Turgot) factors , there can be no other solution than to consider all these different causes one by one, supposing that they might have been different, and trying to imagine the course of events that might follow in that case. As M. Weber says, in order to “untangle real causal relationships, we create unreal ones.” Such “imaginary experience” is the only way for the historian not only to identify causes, but also to unravel, weigh them, as M. Weber and R. Aron put it, that is, to establish their hierarchy.
Historical-typological method, like all other methods, has its own objective basis. It consists in the fact that in the socio-historical process, on the one hand, the individual particular, the general and the universal are closely interconnected, on the one hand, they differ. Therefore, an important task of understanding historical phenomena and revealing their essence is to identify the unity that was inherent in the diversity of certain combinations of the individual (single). The past in all its manifestations is a continuous dynamic process. It is not a simple sequential flow of events, but a replacement of one qualitative state by another, it has its own significantly different stages, the identification of these stages is also
an important task in the study of historical development. The first step in the work of a historian is to compile a chronology. The second step is periodization. The historian cuts history into periods and replaces the continuity of time with some semantic structure. The relationships of discontinuity and continuity are revealed: continuity occurs within periods, discontinuity occurs between periods.
Particular varieties of the historical-typological method are: the method of periodization (allows us to identify a number of stages in the development of various social phenomena) and the structural-diachronic method (aimed at studying historical processes at different times, allows us to identify the duration and frequency of various events).
Historical-systemic method allows us to understand the internal mechanisms of the functioning of social systems. The systems approach is one of the main methods used in historical science, since society (and an individual) is a complexly organized system. Basis of application this method in history there is unity in the socio-historical development of the individual, the special and the general. In reality and concretely, this unity appears in historical systems of different levels. The functioning and development of societies includes and synthesizes those basic components that make up historical reality. These components include individual unique events (for example, the birth of Napoleon), historical situations (for example, the Great French Revolution) and processes (the influence of the idea and events of the French Revolution on Europe). It is obvious that all these events and processes are not only causally determined and have cause-and-effect relationships, but are also functionally interconnected. The task of system analysis, which includes structural and functional methods, is to provide a complete, comprehensive picture of the past.
The concept of a system, like any other cognitive tool, describes some ideal object. From the point of view of its external properties, this ideal object acts as a set of elements between which certain relationships and connections are established. Thanks to them, a set of elements turns into a coherent whole. In turn, the properties of a system turn out to be not just the sum of the properties of its individual elements, but are determined by the presence and specificity of the connection and relationships between them. The presence of connections and relationships between elements and the integrative connections generated by them, the integral properties of the system ensure the relatively independent separate existence, functioning and development of the system.
The system as a relatively isolated integrity is opposed to the environment. In fact, the concept of the environment is implicit (if there is no environment, then there will be no system) contained in the concept of the system as an integrity, the system is relatively isolated from the rest of the world, which acts as the environment.
The next step in a meaningful description of the properties of the system is to fix its hierarchical structure. This system property is inextricably linked with the potential divisibility of system elements and the presence for each system of a variety of connections and relationships. The fact of the potential divisibility of system elements means that system elements can be considered as special systems.
Essential properties of the system:
- from the point of view internal structure any system has appropriate orderliness, organization and structure;
- the functioning of the system is subject to certain laws inherent in this system; at any given moment the system is in a certain state; a successive set of states constitutes its behavior.
The internal structure of the system is described using the following concepts: “set”; "element"; "attitude"; "property"; "connection"; “communication channels”; "interaction"; "integrity"; "subsystem"; "organization"; "structure"; “leading part of the system”; "subsystem; decision maker”; hierarchical structure of the system."
The specific properties of the system are characterized through following signs: “isolation”; "interaction"; "integration"; "differentiation"; "centralization"; "decentralization"; " feedback"; "equilibrium"; "control"; "self-regulation"; "self-government"; "competition".
The behavior of the system is determined through such concepts as: “environment”; "activity"; "functioning"; "change"; "adaptation"; "height"; "evolution"; "development"; "genesis"; "education".
Modern research uses many methods designed to extract information from sources, process it, systematize and construct theories and historical concepts. Sometimes the same method (or its variations) is described by different authors under different names. An example is the descriptive-narrative - ideographic - descriptive - narrative method.
Exploratory-narrative method (ideographic) - a scientific method used in all socio-historical and natural sciences and ranking first in terms of breadth of application. Requires compliance with a number of requirements:
- a clear understanding of the chosen subject of study;
- sequence of description;
- systematization, grouping or classification, characteristics of the material (qualitative, quantitative) in accordance with the research task.
Among other scientific methods, the descriptive-narrative method is the original one. To a large extent, it determines the success of work using other methods, which usually “look through” the same material in new aspects.
A prominent representative of narrative in historical science was the famous German scientist L. von Ranke (1795-1886), who, after graduating from the University of Leipzig, where he studied classical philology and theology, became interested in reading the novels of W. Scott, O. Thierry and other authors, after which began to study history and published a number of works that were a resounding success. Among them are “History of the Roman and Germanic Peoples”, “Sovereigns and Peoples of Southern Europe in the 16th-17th Centuries”, “The Popes, Their Church and State in the 16th and 17th Centuries”, 12 books on Prussian history.
In works of a source study nature, the following are often used:
- conventional documentary and grammatical-diplomatic methods, those. methods of dividing text into constituent elements, are used to study office work and office documents;
- methods of textual criticism. For example, logical analysis of the text allows you to interpret various “dark” places, identify contradictions in the document, existing gaps, etc. The use of these methods makes it possible to identify missing (destroyed) documents and reconstruct various events;
- historical-political analysis allows you to compare information various sources, to recreate the circumstances of the political struggle that gave rise to the documents, to specify the composition of the participants who adopted this or that act.
In historiographical studies, the following are often used:
Chronological method- focusing on the analysis of the movement towards scientific thoughts, changes in concepts, views and ideas in chronological order, which makes it possible to reveal the patterns of accumulation and deepening of historiographic knowledge.
Problem-chronological method involves the division of broad topics into a number of narrow problems, each of which is considered in chronological order. This method is used both when studying the material (at the first stage of analysis, together with methods of systematization and classification), and when arranging it and presenting it within the text of a work on history.
Periodization method- is aimed at highlighting individual stages in the development of historical science in order to discover leading trends in scientific thought and identify new elements in its structure.
Method of retrospective (return) analysis allows us to study the process of movement of the thoughts of historians from the present to the past in order to identify elements of strictly preserved knowledge in our days, check the conclusions of previous historical research and the data of modern science. This method is closely related to the “remnants” method, i.e. a method of reconstructing objects that have gone into the past based on the remains that have survived and reached the modern historian of the era. The researcher of primitive society E. Taylor (1832-1917) used ethnographic material.
Prospective analysis method identifies promising directions, topics for future research based on an analysis of what has been achieved modern science level and using knowledge of the patterns of development of historiography.
Modeling- This is the reproduction of the characteristics of an object on another object specially created for its study. The second of the objects is called the model of the first. Modeling is based on a certain correspondence (but not identity) between the original and its model. There are 3 types of models: analytical, statistical, simulation. Models are resorted to in case of a lack of sources or, conversely, a saturation of sources. For example, in the computer center of the USSR Academy of Sciences, a model of the ancient Greek polis was created.
Methods of mathematical statistics. Statistics arose in the second half of the 17th century. in England. In historical science, statistical methods began to be used in the 19th century. Events subject to statistical processing must be homogeneous; quantitative and qualitative characteristics must be studied in unity.
There are two types of statistical analysis:
- 1) descriptive statistics;
- 2) sample statistics (used in the absence complete information and gives a probabilistic conclusion).
Among the many statistical methods we can highlight: the method of correlation analysis (establishes a relationship between two variables, a change in one of them depends not only on the second, but also on chance) and entropy analysis (entropy is a measure of the diversity of a system) - allows you to track social connections in small ( up to 20 units) groups that do not obey probable statistical patterns. For example, academician I.D. Kovalchenko subjected the tables of zemstvo household censuses of the post-reform period to mathematical processing and revealed the degree of stratification among estates and communities.
Method of terminological analysis. The terminological apparatus of sources borrows its subject content from life. The connection between language changes and changes has long been established public relations. A brilliant application of this method can be found in
F. Engels “Frankish dialect” 1, where he, having analyzed the movement of consonants in words with the same root, established the boundaries of German dialects and drew conclusions about the nature of tribal migration.
A variation is toponymic analysis - geographical names. Anthroponymic analysis - name formation and name creation.
Content analysis- quantitative processing method large areas documents developed in American sociology. Its use makes it possible to identify the frequency of occurrence of characteristics of interest to the researcher in the text. Based on them, one can judge the intentions of the author of the text and the possible reactions of the addressee. The units are a word or a theme (expressed through modifier words). Content analysis involves at least 3 stages of research:
- dividing the text into semantic units;
- counting the frequency of their use;
- interpretation of text analysis results.
Content analysis can be used in the analysis of periodic
prints, questionnaires, complaints, personal (court, etc.) files, biographies, census forms or lists in order to identify any trends by counting the frequency of repeating characteristics.
In particular, D.A. Gutnov applied the method of content analysis when analyzing one of the works of P.N. Milyukova. The researcher identified the most frequently occurring text units in the famous “Essays on the History of Russian Culture” by P.N. Miliukov, constructing graphs based on them. Recently, statistical methods have been actively used to construct a collective portrait of historians of the post-war generation.
Media analysis algorithm:
- 1) the degree of objectivity of the source;
- 2) number and volume of publications (dynamics by year, percentage);
- 3) authors of the publication (readers, journalists, military personnel, political workers, etc.);
- 4) frequency of occurring value judgments;
- 5) tone of publications (neutral informational, panegyric, positive, critical, negatively emotionally charged);
- 6) frequency of use of artistic, graphic and photographic materials (photos, caricatures);
- 7) ideological goals of the publication;
- 8) dominant themes.
Semiotics(from Greek - sign) - a method of structural analysis of sign systems, a discipline dealing with the comparative study of sign systems.
The foundations of semiotics were developed in the early 1960s. in the USSR Yu.M. Lotman, V.A. Uspensky, B.A. Uspensky, Yu.I. Levin, B.M. Gasparov, who founded the Moscow-Tartu semiotic school. A laboratory on history and semiotics was opened at the University of Tartu, which was active until the early 1990s. Lotman's ideas have found application in linguistics, philology, cybernetics, information systems, art theory, etc. The starting point of semiotics is the idea that the text is a space in which the semiotic character literary work implemented as an artifact. For a semiotic analysis of a historical source, it is necessary to reconstruct the code used by the creator of the text and establish their correlation with the codes used by the researcher. The problem is that the fact conveyed by the author of the source is the result of choosing from the mass of surrounding events an event that, in his opinion, has meaning. The use of this technique is effective in the analysis of various rituals: from everyday rituals to state rituals 1. As an example of the application of the semiotic method, one can cite the study of Lotman Yu.M. “Conversations about Russian culture. Life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVIII - early XIX centuries)", in which the author examines such significant rituals of noble life as a ball, matchmaking, marriage, divorce, duel, Russian dandyism, etc.
Modern research uses methods such as: discourse analysis method(analysis of text phrases and its vocabulary through discourse markers); "dense description" method(not a simple description, but an interpretation of various interpretations of ordinary events); narrative history method"(considering familiar things as incomprehensible, unknown); case study method (study of a unique object or extreme event).
The explosion of interview material into historical research as a source led to the formation of Oral History. Working with interview texts required historians to develop new methods.
Construction method. It consists in the fact that the researcher studies possible larger number autobiographies from the point of view of the problem he is studying. When reading autobiographies, the researcher gives them a certain interpretation based on some general scientific theory. Elements of autobiographical descriptions become “bricks” for him, from which he constructs a picture of the phenomena under study. Autobiographies provide facts to build a general picture, which are related to each other according to consequences or hypotheses arising from the general theory.
Method of examples (illustrative). This method is a variation of the previous one. It consists of illustrating and confirming certain theses or hypotheses with examples selected from autobiographies. Using the method of illustrations, the researcher looks for confirmation of his ideas in them.
Typological analysis- consists in identifying certain types of personalities, behavior, patterns and patterns of life in the studied social groups Oh. To do this, autobiographical material is subjected to a certain cataloging and classification, usually with the help of theoretical concepts, and all the wealth of reality described in biographies is reduced to several types.
Statistical processing. This type of analysis is aimed at establishing the relationship various characteristics authors of autobiographies and their positions and aspirations, as well as the dependence of these characteristics on various properties of social groups. Such measurements are useful, in particular, in cases where the researcher compares the results of studying autobiographies with the results obtained by other methods.
Methods used in local studies:
- excursion method: travel to the study area, familiarization with the architecture and landscape. Locus - place - is not a territory, but a community of people engaged in specific activities, united by a connecting factor. In its original understanding, an excursion is a scientific lecture of a motor (moving) nature, in which the element of literature is reduced to a minimum. The main place in it is occupied by the feelings of the tourist, and the information is of a commentary nature;
- the method of complete immersion in the past involves long-term residence in the region in order to penetrate into the atmosphere of the place and more fully understand the people inhabiting it. This approach is very close in views to the psychological hermeneutics of V. Dilthey. It is possible to reveal the individuality of a city as an integral organism, to identify its core, and to determine the realities of the current state. On the basis of this, a whole state is formed (the term was introduced by local historian N.P. Antsiferov).
- identification of “cultural nests”. It is based on a principle put forward in the 1920s. N.K. Piksanov on the relationship between the capital and the province in the history of Russian spiritual culture. In a general article by E.I. Dsrgacheva-Skop and V.N. Alekseev, the concept of “cultural nest” was defined as “a way of describing the interaction of all areas of the cultural life of the province during its heyday...”. Structural parts of the “cultural nest”: landscape and cultural environment, economic, social system, culture. Provincial “nests” influence the capital through “cultural heroes” - outstanding personalities, leaders acting as innovators (urban planner, book publisher, innovator in medicine or pedagogy, philanthropist or philanthropist);
- topographic anatomy - study through names, which are carriers of information about the life of the city;
- anthropogeography - the study of the prehistory of the place where the object is located; analysis of the logical line: place - city - community 3.
Methods used in historical and psychological research.
Method psychological analysis or the comparative psychological method is a comparative approach from identifying the reasons that prompted an individual to take certain actions, to the psychology of entire social groups and masses as a whole. To understand the individual motives of a particular personality position, traditional characteristics are not enough. It is required to identify the specifics of thinking and the moral and psychological appearance of a person, which determines
that determined the perception of reality and determined the views and activities of the individual. The study touches on the psychology of all aspects of the historical process; general group characteristics and individual characteristics are compared.
Method of socio-psychological interpretation - involves a description of psychological characteristics in order to identify the socio-psychological conditionality of people’s behavior.
Method of psychological construction (experience) - interpretation of historical texts by recreating the inner world of their author, penetrating into the historical atmosphere in which they were located.
For example, Senyavskaya E.S. proposed this method for studying the image of the enemy in a “borderline situation” (the term of Heidegger M., Jaspers K.), meaning by it the restoration of certain historical types of behavior, thinking and perception 1.
Researcher M. Hastings, when writing the book “Overlord,” tried to mentally make a jump to that distant time, even took part in the exercises of the English Navy.
Methods used in archaeological research: magnetic prospecting, radioisotope and thermoluminescent dating, spectroscopy, X-ray structural and X-ray spectral analysis, etc. To reconstruct the appearance of a person from bone remains, knowledge of anatomy is used (Gerasimov’s method). Geertz Kn. “Rich description”: in search of an interpretive theory of culture // Anthology of cultural studies. TL. Interpretations of culture. St. Petersburg, 1997. pp. 171-203. Schmidt S.O. Historical local history: issues of teaching and learning. Tver, 1991; Gamayunov S.A. Local history: problems of methodology // Questions of history. M., 1996. No. 9. P. 158-163.
