«Антропологический поворот» экономической истории России и исследования Ю.А. Петрова
Yu.A. Petrov – the scientist with a world name and big scientific authority, the author more than 200 articles and monographs. He directed several very significant scientific projects, acted as the editor-in-chief and the organizer of preparation of a number of encyclopedias, collective monographs and collections of articles. Through all creativity of Yu.A. Petrov there passed the "financial" subject, history of the "Moscow" banks of the second half of the 19th century Besides, under its edition and with its participation monumental works on history of the State bank of Russia were published. An important subject of works of Petrov – history of the Russian businessmen. He pays much attention in the creativity to relationship of businessmen and the authoriry.
This book on changing narratives of Russian history will trace cultural mythologies from the period when the Russian Empire was created, during the reign of Ivan IV (1547-1584), to its fall in 1905. The boundaries of our discussion are two seminal works: the Muscovite Book of Royal Degrees, produced between 1555 and 1564 in the Moscow metropolitans’ workshop, and the Course on Russian History (1904-1911), written by Vasilii Kliuchevskii, the most authoritative figure among Russian historians before the Bolshevik Revolution. Among the other authors whose views on Russian history have made major contributions in this area and founded schools are Vasilii Tatishchev, Nikolai Karamzin, and Sergei Solov’ev. We will also look at the narratives produced by foreign historians, some at the request of Russian institutions and others composed to give readers in their native lands a sense of Russian history.
Since the fall of Communism in the Soviet Union the historiography of revolutionary Russia has developed a distinct provincial turn. The opening of Soviet central and provincial archives provided new research opportunities to historians. Numerous articles and volumes focusing on Russia’s provinces have since appeared on both sides of the former Soviet border, and the historiography of the Russian revolution matured with an accelerated speed to account for multiple local variables. The understanding of multiplicity of local experiences profoundly changed and challenged the historical interpretations of the crisis that played out in Russia from 1917 to 1921. The article discusses the variety of local revolutionary experiences as they are revealed in recent historiography, but also focuses on some larger themes and issues where this regional perspective provides new insights and affects the general understanding of the Russian revolution. In particular, it discusses the factors contributing to the disintegration and reconstruction of the state, including the patterns and meaning of power in a provincial context, mechanisms of popular mobilization in the civil-war period including in Russia’s non-Russian regions, as well as transition to peace.
The focus of this article is on a specific aspect of the recent state of historical research in Russia: the problem of universalization (cognitive and institutional) of Russian historical studies and recognition of the Russian scholars’ knowledge claims. Cognitive aspects of the “restructuring” of science, research themes, the state of the disciplinary community and communicative strategies, position of historians in the humanities establishment and relationships with the authorities are studied.
This paper is aimed to identify theoretical problems, which arise when studying the preconditions of and obstacles to the participation of the Russian historians in international scientific discussion. The investigation is based on the concepts of centre-periphery and cultural transfer. The key question is why, how and when the new historical knowledge developed by the Russian scholars became - or, as an extreme case, have not become - part of global scientific heritage. Discussion of ‘presence’ in the global science is connected not so much with the aftermath of autarchy during the socialist period as with the difficulties of adapting to new conditions of existence as a ‘normal’ discipline and the rigors of being a ’poor‘ science. In this article we review not only specifics of the transfer of knowledge produced by Russian historians, but also specifics of reception preceding it.
This article also contains analysis of all publications of Russian historians in foreign historical journals, included in the database Web of Science in 1993–2008 which are examined combining quantitative measures-number of articles and their citation indices - with qualitative analysis of publications.