Subject of history

History deals with human activity, i.e. with actions performed by individuals and groups of individuals. It describes the circumstances in which people live and the way they respond to these circumstances. Its object is the value judgments and goals toward which people guided by these judgments strive, the means to which people resort to achieve the goals they pursue, and the results of their actions. History studies the conscious reaction of a person to the state of his environment, both the natural environment and the social environment, determined by the actions of previous generations and his contemporaries.

Each individual is born into a specific social and natural environment. The individual is not simply a person in general, whom history can consider in the abstract. At every moment of his life, an individual is the product of all the experience accumulated by his ancestors, plus the experience that he himself has accumulated. The real man lives as a member of his family, his race, his people and his era; as a citizen of his country; as a member of a particular social group; as a representative of a certain profession. He is inspired by certain religious, philosophical, metaphysical and political ideas, which he sometimes expands or modifies with his own thinking.

His actions are guided by the ideologies he has internalized in his environment. However, these ideologies are not immutable. They are products of the human mind and change when new thoughts are added to the old stock of ideas or replace discarded ideas. In searching for the source of the origin of new ideas, history cannot go further than establishing that they were produced by the thinking of some person. The ultimate data of history, beyond which no historical research can go, are human ideas and actions. The historian can trace the origin of an idea to another, previously developed idea. He can describe the external conditions to which these actions were a reaction. But he will never be able to say more about new ideas and new ways of behavior than that they arose at a certain point in space and time in the human brain and were perceived by other people.

Attempts have been made to explain the birth of ideas from “natural” factors. The ideas were described as required product geographical environment, the physical structure of the human environment. This doctrine is clearly contrary to the available facts. Many ideas are born as a reaction to irritations in the physical environment of a person. But the content of these ideas is not determined external environment. Different individuals and groups of individuals react differently to the same external environment.

The diversity of ideas and actions has been attempted to explain biological factors. Man as a biological species is divided into racial groups that have clearly distinguishable heritable biological characteristics. Historical experience does not prevent the assumption that members of a particular racial group are better equipped to understand sound ideas than members of other races. However, it is necessary to explain why people of the same race have different ideas? Why are brothers different from each other?

It is all the more questionable whether cultural backwardness is an indication of the irreversible inferiority of a racial group. The evolutionary process that transformed man's bestial ancestors into modern humans lasted many hundreds of thousands of years. Compared to this period, the fact that some races have not yet reached the cultural level that other races passed several thousand years ago does not seem to be of much importance. Physical and mental development Some individuals progress more slowly than average, but subsequently they far outperform most normally developing people. It is not impossible that the same phenomenon is characteristic of entire races.

Beyond human ideas and the goals to which people strive, prompted by these ideas, nothing exists for history. If a historian refers to the meaning of a fact, then he always refers either to an interpretation that active people give the situation in which they have to live and act, as well as the results of the actions taken, or the interpretation that other people give to the results of these actions. The final causes to which history refers are always the ends towards which individuals and groups of individuals strive. History does not recognize in the course of events any other significance and meaning than that which is attributed to them by acting people, judging from the point of view of their own human affairs.

Methods of historical research

The basis of history as a subject and science is 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 different interpretations of the same event, various teachings, schools, and so on.

The following methods of historical research are distinguished:

Logical,

General scientific,

Special,

Interdisciplinary.

Logical methods of historical research

In practice, historians have to use special research methods based on logical and general scientific methods. Logical (philosophical) methods include analysis and synthesis, analogy and comparison, modeling and generalization, and others.

Synthesis implies the reunification of an event or object from smaller components, that is, a movement from simple to complex is used here. The exact opposite of synthesis is analysis, in which you have to move from the complex to the simple.

No less important are such research methods in history as induction and deduction. The latter makes it possible to develop a theory based on the systematization of empirical knowledge about the object under study, drawing numerous consequences. Induction transfers everything from the particular to the general, often probabilistic, position.

Scientists also use analgia and comparison. The first makes it possible to see some similarities between different objects that have large number relationships, properties and other things, and comparison is a judgment about the signs of difference and similarity between objects. Comparison is extremely important for qualitative and quantitative characteristics, classification, evaluation and other things.

Particularly important methods of historical research are modeling, which allows us to only assume the connection between objects in order to identify their location in the system, and generalization, a method that identifies common features that make it possible to make an even more abstract version of an event or some other process.

· General scientific methods of historical research

IN in this case the above methods are complemented by empirical methods of knowledge, that is, experiment, observation and measurement, as well as theoretical methods of research, such as mathematical methods, transitions from the abstract to the concrete and vice versa, and others.

· Special methods of historical research

One of the most important in this area is the comparative historical method, which not only highlights the underlying problems of phenomena, but also points out the similarities and features in historical processes, and indicates the trends of certain events.

At one time, the theory of K. Marx and his historical-dialectical method, in contrast to which the civilizational method acted, became especially widespread.

· Interdisciplinary research methods in history

Like any other science, history is interconnected with other disciplines that help to understand the unknown to explain certain historical events. For example, using psychoanalytic techniques, historians have been able to interpret the behavior of historical figures. The interaction between geography and history is very important, as a result of which the cartographic method of research appeared. Linguistics has made it possible to learn a lot about early history based on a synthesis of approaches from history and linguistics. There are also very close connections between history and sociology, mathematics, etc.

· The cartographic research method is a separate section of cartography that has important historical and economic significance. With its help, you can not only determine the place of residence of individual tribes, indicate the movement of tribes, etc., but also find out the location of minerals and other important objects.

· General scientific research methods

General scientific methods include universal research methods, which are used to one degree or another by every science and every scientific theory. The most common of them are the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete, analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, and in the social sciences - the method of unity of the logical and historical.

· Ascent from abstract to concrete

The most important method of studying reality, characteristic of any science, scientific thinking in general, is the method of ascent from the abstract to the concrete. To correctly understand its essence, one must have a correct understanding of the categories of concrete and abstract.

From a scientific point of view, the concrete is, firstly, a real object, reality in all the richness of its content. Secondly, it is a reflection of this reality, specific scientific knowledge about it, which is the result of sensory perception and thinking. In the second meaning, the concrete exists in the form of a system of theoretical concepts and categories. “Concrete is concrete because it is a synthesis of many definitions, therefore, the unity of the diverse. In thinking it therefore appears as a process of synthesis, as a result, and not as a starting point, although it represents a real starting point and, as a result, also a starting point contemplation and representation"1.

Abstraction, or abstraction, is the result of abstraction - a thinking process, the essence of which is the mental abstraction from a number of non-essential properties of a real object and thereby the identification of its basic properties common to other objects. Abstractions are “abbreviations in which we embrace, according to their general properties, many different sensory things”2. Examples of abstractions include concepts such as “person” or “house”. In the first case, thinking is distracted from such characteristics of a person as race, nationality, gender, age, in the second - from the variety of types of houses. The category “economy” is the same abstraction, since it lacks features that characterize many economic relations inherent in any real economy.

Based on this scientific understanding of the concrete and the abstract, it can be argued that objects and phenomena of reality are always concrete, and their everyday or scientific definitions are always abstract. This is explained by the fact that the organs of human sensory perception are capable of capturing only individual aspects, properties and relationships of real objects. A person can imagine an object in all its concreteness, with all its elements, their internal and external connections only through thinking, step by step moving from surface perception to understanding its deep, essential connections. That is why this process of thinking is called ascent from the abstract to the concrete.

In general, the process of scientific knowledge of reality is carried out in two interconnected and interdependent ways: by the movement of thought from concrete objects of knowledge, given in their sensory perception, to abstractions (this path is also called the movement from the concrete to the abstract, from the particular to the general, or from facts to generalizations) and by ascending from the abstract to the concrete, the essence of which is to obtain an idea of ​​reality through understanding the resulting abstractions.

· Analysis and synthesis

Both in nature and in society, the subject being studied has a set of signs, properties, and traits. To correctly understand a given subject, it is necessary to break it down into its simplest component elements, subject each element to detailed study, and identify the role and significance of each element within a single whole. The decomposition of a subject into individual elements and the study of each of these elements as a necessary part of the whole is called analysis.

However, the research process is not limited to analysis. After the nature of each of the constituent elements is known, their role and meaning within a given whole is clarified, it is necessary to reconnect these elements, in accordance with their role and purpose, into a single whole. The combination of dissected and analyzed elements into a single internally connected whole is called synthesis.

A physicist or chemist can experimentally isolate the aspect of a phenomenon being studied from all others and study it in its pure form. In economic theory, this method is impossible. When studying the subject of economic theory, analysis and synthesis can only be carried out in the head of the researcher, using the mental division of the subject being studied. Here, the use of scientific abstractions acquires paramount importance as a tool for understanding reality.

· Induction and deduction

Induction (literally translated from Latin - guidance) is a method of logical reasoning, using which one moves from knowledge about individual specific facts or from less general, individual knowledge to knowledge of a more general nature. This method is an ancient (originating in ancient Indian, ancient Chinese and ancient Greek logic) method of logical reasoning, a process of cognizing reality by moving from the concrete to the abstract.

Induction usually relies directly on observation and experiment. The source material for it are facts that are obtained in the process of empirical study of reality. The result of inductive thinking is generalizations, scientific hypotheses, guesses about previously unknown patterns and laws.

The final basis and criterion for the correctness of generalizing inductive conclusions is practice. Knowledge obtained purely inductively usually turns out to be incomplete and, as F. Engels put it, “problematic.” For this reason, the conclusions of inductive inferences in the process of cognition are closely intertwined with deduction.

Deduction (inference) is the conclusion of speculative consequences from premises in accordance with the laws of logic (the favorite method of the famous detective Sherlock Holmes). Questions of deduction began to be intensively developed from the end of the 19th century. in connection with the rapid development of mathematical logic.

The rigor of logical and mathematical constructions can create the illusion of impeccability of conclusions based on the deductive method. In this regard, it is necessary to remember that the laws of logic and mathematics themselves are only the results of observing some laws of the world around us, mainly in the field of natural science. Therefore, the use of the deductive method requires knowledge of the internal laws of connection of the phenomena being studied, without which no logic can lead to correct conclusions. The deductive method is a tool for understanding reality, not creating it. Figuratively speaking, the deductive method is a cookbook that allows you to bake a good pie from raw ingredients, but does not make it possible to make such a pie from simulated or conventional raw materials. Therefore, when a theorist bases his theory on a conditional assumption, he cannot expect to obtain conclusions that reflect reality.

· Unity of logical and historical

In the social sciences, the support of logical scientific constructions is actual history, and therefore here purely speculative theoretical models are permissible only within very limited limits. Good knowledge of the facts of history and their verification of the results of logical inferences is an important methodological principle economic science, which is called the principle of unity of the historical and logical. Where the history of the social system under consideration begins, its theoretical analysis should begin with the same. At the same time, the theoretical reflection of the historical process is not its an exact copy. The totality of processes and relationships that make up a specific social system is immeasurably greater than its individual aspects, which are the subject of one or another social science. Therefore, the researcher must abstract from a number of relationships that are unimportant from the point of view of his subject. History describes and records facts and events as they actually took place in a particular country, at a particular period of time. Economic theory selects and considers from the facts of history only those that indicate typical relationships and natural, necessary connections. With logical reflection, history is, as it were, cleared of everything accidental and unimportant and is reproduced only in its main, decisive, objectively necessary links. History is reflected in logic as a progressive, natural movement of society from simple to complex, from lower to higher. All historically random zigzags in the process of this movement are not reproduced during logical research.

· Other research methods

In the process of scientific knowledge, numerous and varied methods are used, including private techniques, usually called methodology. Of these, first of all, the method of comparison should be called - a cognitive logical operation, through which, on the basis of some fixed attribute (the basis of comparison), the identity (equality) or difference of the objects being compared is established.

Common methods for studying current reality are empirical methods, which include observation and experiment. In modern scientific knowledge, methods of analogy, modeling, formalization, probability theory, and statistical methods have become widespread.

Each science, having its own special subject of study and its own theoretical principles, applies special methods resulting from one or another understanding of the essence of its object. Thus, the methods used in the study of social phenomena are determined by the specifics of the social form of movement of matter, its laws, and its essence. In the same way, biological methods must be consistent with the essence of biological forms of movement of matter. Statistical patterns, which objectively exist in the mass of random phenomena and which are characterized by specific relationships between the random and the necessary, the individual and the general, the whole and its parts, constitute the objective basis of statistical methods of cognition.

The purpose of the lesson is mastering the principles of historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological methods of historical research.

Questions:

1. Idiographic method. Description and generalization.

2. Historical-genetic method.

3. Historical-comparative method.

4. Historical-typological method. Typology as forecasting.

When studying this topic, it is recommended to pay attention first of all to the works of I.D. Kovalchenko, K.V. Khvostovoy, M.F. Rumyantseva, Antoine Pro, John Tosh, revealing its current state sufficiently. You can study other works depending on the availability of time and if this work directly relates to the topic of the student’s scientific research.

“Historical”, “history” in scientific knowledge in a broad sense means everything that, in the diversity of objective social and natural reality, is in a state of change and development. The principle of historicism and the historical method have general scientific significance. They are equally used in biology, geology or astronomy as well as for studying the history of human society. This method allows us to understand reality through the study of its history, which distinguishes this method from the logical one, when the essence of a phenomenon is revealed by analyzing its given state.

Under the methods of historical research understand all general methods of studying historical reality, i.e. methods related to historical science as a whole, used in all areas of historical research. These are special scientific methods. They, on the one hand, are based on a general philosophical method, and on one or another set of general scientific methods, and on the other hand, they serve as the basis for specific problem methods, i.e. methods used in the study of certain specific historical phenomena in the light of certain other research tasks. Their difference lies in the fact that they must be applicable to the study of the past from the remnants that remain from it.

The concept of “ideographic method”, introduced by representatives of the German neo-Kantian philosophy of history, presupposes not only the need to describe the phenomena being studied, but also reduces to it the functions of historical knowledge as a whole. In fact, description, although it is an important stage of this knowledge, does not represent universal method. This is just one of the historian's thinking procedures. What are the role, boundaries of application and cognitive capabilities of the descriptive-narrative method?

The descriptive method is associated with the nature of social phenomena, their characteristics, and their qualitative originality. These properties cannot be neglected; no method of cognition can ignore them.

It follows that knowledge in any case begins with a description, a characteristic of a phenomenon, and the structure of the description is ultimately determined by the nature of the phenomenon being studied. It is quite obvious that such a specific, individually unique character of the object of historical knowledge requires appropriate linguistic means of expression.

The only language suitable for this purpose is living colloquial speech as part of the literary language of the modern historian of the era, scientific historical concepts, source terms. Only a natural language, and not a formalized way of presenting the results of knowledge makes them accessible to the mass reader, which is important in connection with the problem of the formation of historical consciousness.

Substantive content analysis is impossible without methodology; it also underlies the description of the course of events. In this sense, description and analysis of the essence of phenomena are independent, but interconnected, interdependent stages of knowledge. Description is not a random listing of information about what is depicted, but a coherent presentation that has its own logic and meaning. The logic of the image can, to one degree or another, express the true essence of what is depicted, but in any case, the picture of the course of events depends on the methodological concepts and principles used by the author.

In a truly scientific historical study, the formulation of its goal is based on the position, including methodological, of its author, although the study itself is carried out in different ways: in some cases there is a clearly expressed tendency, in others there is a desire for a comprehensive analysis and assessment of what is depicted. However, in the overall picture of events, the proportion of what is a description always prevails over generalization, conclusions regarding the essence of the subject of the description.

Historical reality is characterized a number of common features, and therefore we can identify the main methods of historical research. According to the academician's definition I.D. Kovalchenko The main general historical methods of scientific research include: historical-genetic, historical-comparative, historical-typological and historical-systemic. When using one or another general historical method, other general scientific methods are also used (analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction, description and measurement, explanation, etc.), which act as specific cognitive tools necessary for the implementation of the approaches and principles underlying based on the leading method. The rules and procedures necessary for conducting research are also developed (research methodology) and certain tools and instruments are used (research technique).

Descriptive method - historical-genetic method. The historical-genetic method is one of the most common in historical research. It consists in the consistent discovery 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 recreating real story object. Knowledge goes (must go) 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. Of course, this does not exclude the use (sometimes even widespread) of quantitative indicators. But the latter act as an element in describing the properties of an object, and not as a basis for identifying its qualitative nature and constructing its essentially substantive and formal-quantitative model.

The historical-genetic method allows you to show cause-and-effect relationships and patterns historical development in their immediacy, and characterize historical events and personalities in their individuality and imagery. When using this method, the individual characteristics of the researcher are revealed to the greatest extent. To the extent that the latter reflect a social need, they have a positive impact on the research process.

Thus, the historical-genetic method is the most universal, flexible and accessible method of historical research. At the same time, it is also inherently limited, which can lead to certain costs when it becomes absolute.

The historical-genetic method is aimed primarily at analyzing development. Therefore, with insufficient attention to statics, i.e. to fixing a certain temporal reality of historical phenomena and processes, a danger may arise relativism .

Historical-comparative method has also long been used in historical research. In general, comparison is an important and, perhaps, the most widespread method of scientific knowledge. In fact, no scientific research can do without comparison. The logical basis of the historical-comparative method in the case where the similarity of entities is established is analogy.

Analogy is a general scientific method of cognition, which consists in the fact that based on the similarity of some characteristics of the objects being compared, a conclusion is made about the similarity of other characteristics . It is clear that in this case the circle known signs of the object (phenomenon) with which the comparison is made must be wider than that of the object under study.

Historical-comparative method - critical method. The comparative method and verification of sources are the basis of the historical “craft”, starting with the research of positivist historians. External criticism allows, with the help of auxiliary disciplines, to establish the authenticity of the source. Internal criticism is based on the search for internal contradictions in the document itself. Marc Block considered the most reliable sources to be unintentional, unwitting evidence that was not intended to inform us. He himself called them “indications that the past unintentionally drops along its path.” They can be private correspondence, a purely personal diary, company accounts, marriage records, declarations of inheritance, as well as various items.

In general, any text is encoded by a system of representations that is closely related to the language in which it is written. The report of an official of any era will reflect what he expects to see and what he is able to perceive: he will pass by what does not fit into the scheme of his ideas.

That is why a critical approach to any information is the basis professional activities historian. And a critical attitude requires intellectual effort. As S. Senyobos wrote: “Criticism is contrary to the normal structure of the human mind; the spontaneous tendency of man is to believe what is said. It is quite natural to take on faith any statement, especially a written one; with all the greater ease if it is expressed in numbers, and with even greater ease if it comes from official authorities... Therefore, to apply criticism means to choose a way of thinking that is contrary to spontaneous thinking, to take a position that is unnatural... This cannot be achieved without effort. The spontaneous movements of a person falling into the water are all that is needed to drown. While learning to swim means slowing down your spontaneous movements, which are unnatural.”

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 repeating, the necessary and natural, on the one hand, and qualitatively different, on the other. In this way, 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 parallels. Thirdly, it allows the use of all other general historical methods and is less descriptive than the historical-genetic method.

You can compare objects and phenomena, both similar and different types located on the same and on different stages development. But in one case the essence will be revealed on the basis of identifying similarities, and in the other - differences. Compliance with the specified conditions for historical comparisons, in essence, 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 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 comparative method is used also as a means of developing and verifying hypotheses. On its basis, retro-alternative studies are possible. 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 an event to its ending. This brings to the search for causality in history 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 constructions, but at least it is minimized.

The history of the 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 real history.

Raymond Aron called for rationally weighing the possible causes of certain events by comparing what was possible: “If I say that the decision Bismarck became the cause of the war of 1866... ​​then I mean that without the decision of the chancellor the war would not have started (or at least would not have started at that moment)... 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.

Theory serves only to put into logical form this spontaneous technique, which every ordinary person uses. If we are looking for the cause of a phenomenon, we do not limit ourselves to simple addition or comparison of antecedents. We try to weigh the individual impact of each. 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 happen 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.

Let us assume for a moment... that our general knowledge of a sociological nature allows us to create unreal constructions. But what will their status be? Weber replies: in this case we will be talking about objective possibilities, or, in other words, about the development of events in accordance with the laws known to us, but only probable.”

This analysis in addition to event history, it also applies to everything else. Actual causation is revealed only by comparison with what was possible. If, for example, you are faced with the question of the causes of the Great French Revolution and if we want to weigh the importance that economic factors had accordingly (the crisis of the French economy in late XVIII century, poor harvest in 1788), social factors (rise of the bourgeoisie, noble reaction), political factors (financial crisis of the monarchy, resignation Turgot) etc., then there can be no other solution than to consider all these one by one various reasons, assume that they could be different, and try to imagine the development of events that might follow in this case. As he says M.Weber , in order to “untangle real causal relations, we create unreal ones.” Such “imaginary experience” is the only way for the historian not only to identify causes, but also to untangle and weigh them, as M. Weber and R. Aron put it, that is, to establish their hierarchy.

The historical-comparative method has certain limitations, and the difficulties of its application should also be taken into account. Not all phenomena can be compared. 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, like all other methods, has its own objective basis. It lies in the fact that in socio-historical development, on the one hand, the individual, the particular, the general and the universal are closely interconnected, on the one hand, they are distinguished. That's why important task in the knowledge of socio-historical phenomena, the disclosure of their essence, there becomes the identification of that unity that was inherent in the diversity of certain combinations of the individual (single).

Social life in all its manifestations is a constant dynamic process. It is not a simple sequential flow of events, but a replacement of one qualitative state by another, and has its own dissimilar stages. Identifying these stages is also an important task in understanding socio-historical development.

A layman is right when he recognizes a historical text by the presence of dates in it.

The first feature of time, in which, in general, there is nothing surprising: the time of history is the time of various social groups: societies, states, civilizations. This is a time that serves as a guide for all members of a certain group. Wartime always drags on for a very long time; revolutionary time was a time that flew by very quickly. The fluctuations of historical time are collective. Therefore, they can be objectified.

The historian's task is to determine the direction of movement. The rejection of the teleological point of view in modern historiography does not allow the historian to admit the existence of a clearly directed time, as it appears to contemporaries. The processes under study themselves impart a certain topology to time. The forecast is possible not in the form of an apocalyptic prophecy, but a forecast directed from the past to the future, based on a diagnosis based on the past, in order to assess the possible development of events and assess the degree of its likelihood.

R. Koselleck writes about this: “While prophecy goes beyond the horizon of calculated experience, the forecast, as we know, is itself embedded in the political situation. Moreover, to such an extent that making a forecast in itself means changing the situation. A forecast, then, is a conscious factor in political action; it is made in relation to events by detecting their novelty. Therefore, in some unpredictably predictable way, time is always taken beyond the forecast.”

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 means, therefore, 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.

Typology as a method of scientific knowledge has as its goal the division (ordering) of a collection of objects or phenomena into qualitatively defined types (classes based on their inherent common essential features. The focus on identifying sets of objects and phenomena that are essentially homogeneous in spatial or temporal aspects distinguishes typologization (or typification) from classification and grouping , in a broad sense, in which the task of identifying the belonging of an object as an integrity to one or another qualitative definition may not be set. The division here can be limited to grouping objects according to certain characteristics and in this regard act as a means of organizing and systematizing specific data about historical objects. , phenomena and processes. Typology, being in form a type of classification, is a method of essential analysis.

These principles can be most effectively implemented only on the basis of 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 assign each individual object to one type or another.

All this dictates the need to use both a combined deductive-inductive and the inductive approach when typologizing.

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 special methods of multidimensional typology. Such methods have been developed, and there are already attempts to apply them in historical research.

Methodology of historical research

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

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

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

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

According to modern ideas about science, theory means understanding in terms of certain empirical observations. This comprehension (giving meaning, attributing meaning) is synonymous with theorizing. Just like the collection of information (empirical data), theorizing is an integral component of any science, including history. As a result, the final result of the historian’s work - historical discourse - contains various theoretical concepts on which the historian relies, starting with the dating of the event being described (whether we are talking about an era or simply indicating the year in a certain chronology system). Theorizing (thinking in terms) can take many forms. There are various different ways structuring theories, classification typologies theoretical approaches, from simple empirical generalizations to metatheory. The simplest concept comes down to the dichotomy “description - explanation”. Within this scheme, scientific theories are divided into two “ideal types” - description and explanation. The proportions in which these parts are present in a given theory can vary significantly. These two parts or types of theory correspond to the philosophical concepts of the particular and the general (singular and typical). Any description, first of all, operates with the particular (single), while the explanation, in turn, is based on the general (typical).

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

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

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

During the Renaissance, history appears primarily in the meaning of text rather than knowledge, and the study of history is reduced to the study of ancient texts. A radical change in attitude towards history occurred only in the 16th century. As an explanatory factor, in addition to Providence and individual motives, Fortune appears more and more often, reminiscent of some impersonal historical strength. In the second half of the 16th century. is being done real breakthrough in the understanding of history as a type of knowledge, over the course of a little more than half a century, dozens of historical and methodological treatises have appeared.

The next change in the interpretation of the theoretical foundations of history occurs in the 17th century, and this revolution is carried out by F. Bacon. By history he means any descriptions, and by philosophy/science he means any explanations. “History... deals with isolated phenomena ( individual), which are considered under certain conditions of place and time... All this has to do with memory... Philosophy deals not with individual phenomena and not with sensory impressions, but with abstract concepts derived from them... This completely relates to areas of reason... We consider history and experimental knowledge as a single concept, just like philosophy and science.” F. Bacon's scheme became widely known and was used by many scientists of the 17th-18th centuries. Until the end of the 18th century. history was understood as scientific-descriptive knowledge, which was opposed to scientific-explanatory knowledge. In the terminology of the time, this came down to the opposition of facts and theory. In modern terms, a fact is a statement of existence or implementation that is recognized as true (corresponding to the criteria of truth accepted in a given society or social group). In other words, facts are component descriptions. In turn, what was called theory in Bacon’s time is now called explanation, and theoretical statements also mean descriptive statements.

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

A significant role in the development of the philosophy of science was played by the struggle for the sovereignty of social science within the framework of the philosophical movement that arose in Germany in the 19th century, which is designated as “historicism.” Its representatives were united by the idea of ​​a fundamental difference between the natural and social sciences, the rejection of attempts to build “social physics,” the proof of the “otherness” of social science, and the fight against ideas about the inferiority of this different type of knowledge, compared to the natural sciences. These ideas were developed by W. Dilthey, W. Windelband and G. Rickert. They abandoned the traditional division of descriptive and explanatory knowledge, and began to use the term “understanding” as a generalizing feature of the social sciences, which they contrasted with natural science “explanation.” “Historicists” began to designate “history” as all social scientific knowledge (or the totality of social sciences began to be called “historical”).

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

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

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

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

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

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

The principle of consistency (system approach) assumes that any historical phenomenon can be understood and explained only as part of something more general in time and space. This principle guides the researcher towards revealing the entire integrity of the object being studied, bringing together all the component connections and functions that determine the mechanism of its activity into a single picture. Society in historical development is considered as a highly complex self-regulating system with diverse connections that are constantly changing, but at the same time remain an integral system with a certain structure.

The principle of objectivity. The main goal of any historical research is to obtain reliable, true knowledge about the past. Truth means the need to achieve ideas about the phenomenon or object being studied that are adequate to it. Objectivity is an attempt to reproduce the object of research as it exists in itself, regardless of human consciousness. However, it turns out that “in fact” researchers are not interested in objective reality itself, or rather not in what appears to ordinary thinking behind these words. As the modern historian I.N. correctly noted. Danilevsky, we are unlikely to care about the fact that one day, about 227,000 mean solar days ago, approximately at the intersection of 54° N. w. and 38° east. d., on a relatively small piece of land (about 9.5 sq. km), bounded on both sides by rivers, several thousand representatives of the biological species homo sapiens gathered, who destroyed each other for several hours using various devices. Then, the survivors dispersed: one group went south and the other north.

Meanwhile, this is exactly what happened, “in reality,” objectively, on the Kulikovo Field in 1380, but the historian is interested in something completely different. It is much more important who these same “representatives” considered themselves to be, how they identified themselves and their communities, why and why they tried to exterminate each other, how they assessed the results of the act of self-destruction that occurred, etc. questions. It is necessary to strictly separate our ideas about what and how happened in the past from how it all seemed to contemporaries and subsequent interpreters of events.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The historical-genetic method is based in its application on the literal meaning of the Greek concept “ genesis» – origin, emergence; the process of formation and formation of a developing phenomenon. The historical-genetic method is part of the principle of historicism. Using the historical-genetic method, the main cause-and-effect relationships are established, and also, this method allows us to distinguish key provisions of historical development, determined by the characteristics of the historical era, country, national and group mentality and personal traits of participants in the historical process.

The problem-chronological method involves analyzing historical material in chronological sequence, but within the framework of identified problem blocks, it allows you to concentrate on considering one or another component of the historical process in dynamics.

Synchronous method. Synchrony (“horizontal slice” of the historical process) allows us to compare similar phenomena, processes, institutions among different peoples, in different states in the same historical time, which makes it possible to identify general patterns and national characteristics.

Diachronic method. Diachronic comparison (“vertical slice” of the historical process) is used to compare the state of the same phenomenon, process, system in different periods of activity. Diachrony reveals the essence and nature of the changes that have occurred, makes it possible to trace the dynamics of the development of qualitatively new parameters in them, which allows us to highlight qualitatively different stages, periods of their evolution. Using the diachronic method, periodization is carried out, which is an obligatory component of research work.

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

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

The historical-systemic method of cognition consists in establishing relationships and interactions of objects, revealing the internal mechanisms of their functioning and historical development. All historical events have their own cause and are interconnected, that is, they are systemic in nature. Even simple historical systems have diverse functions, determined both by the structure of the system and its place in the hierarchy of systems. The historical-systemic method requires an appropriate approach to each specific historical reality: conducting structural and functional analyzes of this reality, studying it not as consisting of individual properties, but as a qualitatively integral system, having a complex of its own features, occupying a certain place and playing a certain role in the hierarchy systems As an example of a systemic analysis, one can cite the work of F. Braudel “Material civilization, economics and capitalism”, in which the author formulated a systematized “theory of the multi-stage structure of historical reality”. He distinguishes three layers in history: eventual, conjunctural and structural. Explaining the features of his approach, Braudel writes: “Events are just dust and are only brief flashes in history, but they cannot be considered as meaningless, because they sometimes illuminate layers of reality.” From these systematic approaches, the author examines the material civilization of the 15th-18th centuries. reveals the history of the world economy, the industrial revolution, etc.

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

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

The first of them is to look at history as a single stream of progressive, upward movement of humanity. This understanding of history presupposes the existence of stages in the development of humanity as a whole. Therefore, it can be called unitary-stadial (from lat. unitas– unity), evolutionist. Linear model history was formed in ancient times - in the Iranian-Zoroastrian environment and the Old Testament consciousness, on the basis of which Christian (as well as Judaic and Muslim) historiosophy developed. This approach found its manifestation in the identification of such main stages of human history as savagery, barbarism, civilization (A. Ferguson, L. Morgan), as well as in the division of history into hunting-gathering, pastoral (pastoral), agricultural and commercial-industrial periods (A. Turgot, A. Smith). It is also present in the identification of four world-historical eras in the history of civilized humanity: ancient eastern, ancient, medieval and modern (L. Bruni, F. Biondo, K. Köhler).

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

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

The evolutionary approach allows us to identify the accumulation of a new quality, shifts in the economic, sociocultural, institutional and political spheres of life, and certain stages that society goes through in its development. The picture that emerges from this approach resembles a set of discrete segments drawn along a hypothetical line representing the movement from a point of underdevelopment to progress. The civilizational approach focuses attention on a set of rather slowly changing parameters that characterize the sociocultural and civilizational core of the social system. Within this approach, the researcher focuses on the inertia of history, on the continuity (continuity, consistency) of the historical past and present.

Different in essence, these approaches complement each other. Indeed, the entire course human history convinces that there is development and progress in it, despite the possibility of serious crises and reverse movements. Moreover, individual components of the social structure change (and develop) unevenly, at different speeds, and the speed of development of each of them has a certain impact on other components (accelerating or slowing down their development). A society at a lower stage of development differs in a number of parameters from a society that is at a higher stage of development (this also applies to a single society considered at different phases of its development). At the same time, changes are usually not able to completely blur the characteristics that are attributed to a particular society. The transformations themselves often lead only to a regrouping, a rearrangement of emphasis in the complex of root parameters that characterize it, and a transfiguration of the relationships that exist between them.

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

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

The theory of mentalities, in turn, allows us to introduce into scientific circulation a new range of historical sources reflecting daily life people, their thoughts and feelings and more adequately reconstruct the past through the view of a person who lived in this past.

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

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

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

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

Security questions

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

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

3. Can historians be absolutely objective?

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

5. Which approach to the study of history: evolutionary or cyclical do you understand more and why?

Literature

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

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

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

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

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

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, systems 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. The initial stage of 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 an 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 real history. Raymond Aron called for rationally weighing the possible causes of certain events by comparing what was possible: “If I say that Bismarck’s decision was 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 causality 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. The basis for the application of this method in history is the 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 give 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 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 of 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".

IN modern research Many methods are used 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 component 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 from various sources, recreate the circumstances of the political struggle that gave rise to the documents, and 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 dismemberment broad topics on 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 and 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 of 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- a method of quantitative processing of large amounts of 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. Milyukov, constructing graphs based on them. IN lately statistical methods are 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 publications;
• 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 of a literary work is realized 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 as many autobiographies as possible 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 for constructing 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 social groups under study. 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 dependence of various characteristics of the 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;
• method total immersion into the past implies long-term residence in a region in order to penetrate into the atmosphere of a place and a more complete understanding of 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- research 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 of 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 - implies a description 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 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.

2 Senyavskaya E.S. The history of Russian wars of the 20th century in the human dimension. Problems of military-historical anthropology and psychology. M., 2012.S. 22.

Anthology of cultural studies. TL. Interpretations of culture. St. Petersburg, 1997. pp. 499-535, 603-653; Levi-Strauss K. Structural anthropology. M., 1985; Guide to the methodology of cultural and anthropological research / Compiled by. E.A. Orlova. M., 1991.

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 as the history of institutions generating physical knowledge, and the history of this knowledge itself. In other sciences, both methods are separated into different sides: the history of institutions is dealt with by one direction of this 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 this case 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 you to see the process dialectically, not limited to 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, without going too deeply into such discrepancies, we can give approximately the following definition of a 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 of 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.”

The focus on the use of scientific and 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 evidence-based 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.