This article summarizes manifesting trends that develop in historical discipline in the 21st century: new research topics, transformation of lexicon, main categories and interdisciplinary alliances. The author demonstrates that in the past few decades standards of the stern scientific approach established in 1960s by the new scientific history considerably deteriorated while the subject area has broadened enormously. The attitude of historians towards theoretical models has changed. The requirement for accuracy of scientific statements declined and, as a result, the eclectic merging of different theories, concepts and ideas in the same research has become a common practice. The disciplinary language of contemporary historian has changed significantly as well. These changes might be explained by paradigm shifting and influence of new social sciences: cultural studies, memory studies, urban studies, media studies, cinema studies, digital studies, semiotics and others. To sum up, contemporary historical science reflects the state of social sciences.
A dynamic model of historical culture is proposed, its system-forming components are (1) a change in the types of rationality / models of science: classical – nonclassical – postnonclassical; (2) a change in “dictionaries”: a dictionary of description and explanation – a dictionary of interpretation – a dictionary of representation; (3) modification of the narrative: the formation metanarrativ – its crisis – renarrativization, (4) modification of historical memory: a natural commemoration – “places of memory” – an artificial commemoration. The research focuses on the interaction of scientific historical knowledge, historical narrative as the main form of presentation of historical knowledge and historical memory from postmodern to postpostmodern.
The theory of history is again undergoing yet another transformation. Linguistic and cultural turns have occurred and have been completed. A new paradigm which, with certain precaution, could have been named “back to reality” is on its way. The ongoing metamorphose of epistemological foundations is characterized by unprecedented interest of historians to the problems of historical time. At the same time, this change allows a discussion not only about considerably new vision of historical time but also that of historical space. In the first part of this article we discuss several indicators of radical innovations in the theoretical history which occurred just in the past few years. In the second part we analyze new approaches to historical time.
This article examines the process of history scientization experience in the USSR based on Porshnev’s concept of international affairs in the period of the Thirty Years' War. The author traces the connection between this concept and structuralism, as well as the roll-call between its historiosophy and T. Hobbes' (the problem of the emergence of sociality), C. Schmitt's (the idea of "friend-enemy") and R. Aron's (sociology of international relationships) theories. In the course of the analysis of the argumentative structure of natural-science implication, B.F. Porshnev's theory (concepts of "synchrony" and "diachrony" of the historical process, the concept of "historical experiment"), which is characterized as axiomatic, the aurhor concludes that Porshnev's persistent desire for scientific rigor and rigidity of the conceptual-categorical apparatus leads to the opposite effect - the metaphorization of language.
The article is devoted to a critical analysis of the textbook on Russian palaeography, published in Poland in 2015. The reviewed book is modelled after a traditional structure for such type of an edition, but at the same time the author demonstrartes his full awareness of the newest developments in the field of auxiliary sciences of history and of the interdisciplinary nature of palaeographic studies as well. Several inaccuracies in details which the book contains should be understood first of all as an evidence of deficiencies in an exchange of information between russian and polish scientists.
Bring up a questions for discussion of the creative heritage of O.M. Medushevskaya (1922-2007), the concepts of cognitive history: about the specifics of the Russian version of neukantianism as the basis of the source studies concept of the methodology of history, about intellectual sources of the concept of O.M. Medushevskaya, the problem of the subject in the concept of cognitive history.
The article analyses two conceptual gnoseological points made in the last monograph by Olga M. Medushevskaya – one of the ‘information magnetism’ and another on the nature of the types of historical sources. It is shown that no effect of ‘information magnetism’ could be traced in the process of cognition, while a type of sources is not an objective entity but rather a theoretical construct.
This article deals with the first Russian translation of major prosimetric opera and prosaic exegetical texts originated from the so-called “school of Chartres”. A special attention is paid to the place of this edition in Russian and Western historiography of the 12th century philosophy and Medieval Latin exegesis. It has been shown that the way of selecting the texts for the translation and the method of commenting them carried out by the editors of the anthology make it possible to withdraw the Chartres school from the “no man’s land” between the history of ideas and traditional history of philosophy, restoring its appropriate status in the history of the European intellectual culture – at the intersection of theology, Platonic natural philosophy and poetry.
The main concern of the article is the ways plague was explored and conceptualised by Russian doctors in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Medical theories and epistemologies are accessed in comparison with those employed during the pre-bacteriological era as well as with the European medical ideas of the period.
The article focuses on the limits of using oral history methods in the research of academic communities. The authors analyze the language and ways of self-description used by modern Russian academic community. The study is based on the interviews of Post-Soviet university professors, which helps to clarify what is the concept of tradition for them, what is the origin of their individual memories, and how these memories correspond to the collective perceptions of the ideal university.