Словарь основных исторических понятий: Избранные статьи в 2-х т. 2-е изд.
The author investigates a phenomenon of development of ideologies in a historical context. So the transition of the academic historiography from positivistic methodology to methodology of the linguistic analysis is considered. Linguistic analysis is presented by the theory of speech asts and history of concepts. Accordingly, ideologies appear as cognitive mechanisms and simultaneously cognitive political outlook fi lters.
At the first sight, it seems that the word “civilization” has been part of everyday language for quite a long time. Meanwhile it is almost the opposite: the concept of “civilization” appears in European languages only in the second half of the XVIII century, and it was first used in Russian as late as 1830. In this book we are trying to answer several questions: what has triggered the “invention” of a new term by European thinkers? Why for a long time did Russian politicians and political writers dispense with the concept of “civilization” but by the end of 1820s feel a sudden need to use it? What is the historical relationship between the two competing concepts “civilization” and “culture”? When and how did thinkers start dwelling upon a special “Russian civilization”?
This article delves into the history of classical philology and the relationship between two prominent classical philologists, one Russian and one German: Alexei Losev (1893–1988) and Bruno Snell (1896–1986). The article shows that both scholars worked at the intersection of philosophy, philology, and history of concepts, and both were interested in the history of ideas, terminology, aesthetics, and mythology and in the language of ancient Greek epics. Unlike Snell, who did not speak Russian and was unable to familiarize himself with Losev’s work on the history of ancient thought, Losev relied on Snell’s work from the mid-1920s until the very end of his life, using Snell to defend his own views on various controversial issues (e.g., reconstructing Homer’s archaic notions of the cosmos, debating the meaning of Heraclitus’ term “ethos,” or discussing the usage of the word sēmainō, and so forth). The subject of analysis is Losev’s 1962 review of the Dictionary of the Early Greek Epic (Lexicon des frühgriechischen Epos), edited by B. Snell, as well as the two scholars’ correspondence in 1959–1960.
This chapter is focused on ideologically charged concepts and their changing meanings in discourses used to formulate goals and tasks of the Soviet educational politics. Such the concepts could be of pre-Revolutionary origin. For instance, a word ‘life’ as an element of the Soviet ideological phrase “convergence of school with life” (“sblizhenie shkoly s zhizn’ju”) can be traced back to the Nitzschean discourses in Russian culture of the beginning of the 20th century that had influenced pre-Revolutionary pedagogic works, like the papers by Stanislav Shatsky. During the 1920s—1970s, a number of new concepts was coined in the Soviet public sphere, and some existing concepts changed their meanings many times – or, to be more precise, there were the huge battles between the actors of Soviet educational field (in a Pierre Bourdieu’s sense of a word ‘field’) for one’s right to endow these concepts with one’s own meanings. All these processes can be studied, as we argue, with two main methods that have never previously been used for studying history of Soviet education – namely, history of concepts or 'Begriffsgeschichte' (in its versions of Cambridge school and Reinhart Koselleck) and discursive theory of hegemony by E. Laclau and Ch. Mouffe.
Present article is focused upon two samples of Early-Modern «civil sciences»: rhetorical inquiry dealing with contingency (so called «rhetorica primaria»), and mathesis politica, traditionally referring in intellectual context of the Early Enlightenment to Descartes. Special attention is paid to the famous «new sciences», which are considered in the secondary literature as antithetical: Giambattista Vico’s scienza nuova and Thomas Hobbes scientia civilis. Drawing upon almost unknown 17th century Dutch political writings, the study examines the ways of reception of Thomas Hobbes’ civil science conceived as a rhetorical inquiry. The author also explores G. Vico alternative to Hobbes’ constructionist theoretical style.
On the basis of source study of historiography and history of concepts specificity of the epistemological concept of the representative of the Russian version of neo-Kantianism V. M. Khvostov (1868-1920) is shown. Construction of the theory of history of Khvostov organically combines the theory of the historical process and the theory of historical knowledge. The author substantiates the belonging of V. M. Khvostov's concept to the non(neo)classical model of science of the Russian version of neo-Kantianism.
Contemporary discussion on the concept of "civilization" raises a number of questions for researchers: what is civilization? Does it make sense to talk about "civilizations" in the plural? What is the relationship between "civilization" and contemporaneity? The relevance of the issues can be confirmed by indicating the appeal to them not only by scientists, but also by politicians and common people. The cultural complexity of the contemporary world leads to the fact that the concepts are used more often, but the clarity of their meanings is largely lost. The article proposes to return to the methodological issue of definition of concepts in order to clarify how contemporaneity functions. To achieve this goal, it is proposed to consider the concept of "civilization" and "civilizations", first, in the historical context, and, secondly, to relate them to one of the most important features of contemporaneity – "late globalization". The author assumes that the undertaken consideration is able not only to clarify the use of concepts, but also to deepen our understanding of contemporaneity, as well as to get closer to the productive meaning of the discussion on "civilizational projects" which is relevant in the Russian context.