Что такое глобальная история?
The article is an attempt of takign stock of the burgnoining field of empire studies but devising the framework of general challanges of historical understanding of empire of methodological nature. The main thesis is that studies of empire are heavily influenced by the visions and epistemes of modern social sciences which, in their turn, are woven into the performativity of nation. Thus the true understnding of empire is suggeted to lay in a radical historivization of this political and social phenomenon. The approach of historiziation is further enunciated in the article with the help of the theory of estrangement and with reference to the history of the Russian Empire.
Alexander Semyonov discusses the recently published book Imperial Visions: How Five Imperial Regimes Shaped the World, by Krishan Kumar, within the broader context of ongoing historiographic debates on global and imperial history, empires as regimes for managing diversity, ruptures and transformations in histories of empire, comparisons between and entangle- ment of imperial histories, methodological nationalism, and nationalism and collapse of empires. Semyonov contends that Imperial Visions relates to recent developments in the eld of global history, provides an impor- tant corrective to the view of global historians that empires are primarily political formations, and strengthens the argument of constructivists in the eld of global history, such as that of Sebastian Conrad on global history as an approach and the processes of “world making.” The most innovative contribution by Imperial Visions to the growing literature on empires is its systematic development of a constructivist approach to empire through ideas and ideologies of imperial mission and entanglement of imperial and national power claims. The article engages the ndings by Kumar with what Semyonov calls the growing consensus on “imperial pragmatism” (which stresses governing and practices in the experience of empire) and tests Ku- mar’s conclusions against the existing historical studies of subjectivity and functioning of universalist visions in the context of imperial diversity and hybridity. Semyonov also nds a serious tension in the book between the constructivist approach to empire through imperial ideologies and visions and the structuralist and essentialist view of the “imperial people.”
The chapter traces the history of the sociological thought and institutionalization of the discipline of sociology in the context of the Russian Empire in the second half of the XIX the and the beginning of the XXth century. The authors' main focus is on the entanglement of paradigms of social knowledge and the problem of diversity of the imperial space. The chapter identifies several modalities of refraction and engagement of the imperial diversity in the Russian social thought and later the discipline of sociology: from the learned ignorance of the revolutionary unmaking of the imperial space, the colonialist exclusion of evolutionism and populism, and on to the redefinition of irregular developing society in early twentieth century versions of Russian sociology. The chapter also traces the global circuits of social knowledge and explores how Russian social scientists of the second half of the XIXth century partook in the invention of "traditional society" and how this concept was refracted through the contemporaneous politics of colonialism and imperialism. Finally, the chapter uncovers the origins of institutionalized sociology in the dissenting institutions of higher education: The Russian Higher School of Social Sciences in Paris and the Psycho-Neurological (Bekhterev) Institute in Petersburg; and explores how those institutions refracted the politicized differences of the Russian imperial space.
The revelation that the U.S. Department of Defense had hired anthropologists for its Human Terrain System project—assisting its operations in Afghanistan and Iraq—caused an uproar that has obscured the participation of sociologists in similar Pentagon-funded projects. As the contributors to Sociology and Empire show, such affiliations are not new. Sociologists have been active as advisers, theorists, and analysts of Western imperialism for more than a century.
The collection has a threefold agenda: to trace an intellectual history of sociology as it pertains to empire; to offer empirical studies based around colonies and empires, both past and present; and to provide a theoretical basis for future sociological analyses that may take empire more fully into account. In the 1940s, the British Colonial Office began employing sociologists in its African colonies. In Nazi Germany, sociologists played a leading role in organizing the occupation of Eastern Europe. In the United States, sociology contributed to modernization theory, which served as an informal blueprint for the postwar American empire. This comprehensive anthology critiques sociology's disciplinary engagement with colonialism in varied settings while also highlighting the lasting contributions that sociologists have made to the theory and history of imperialism.
In the XX century the process of globalization has revealed the insufficiency of the Eurocentric “General history” and stimulated the search for methods going beyond its limits and implementation of the projects “Universal world history” / “Global history”.
The aim of the study – to explicitate theoretical limits of the project “Universal world history” / “Global history” and to propose a methodology of comparative study as the approach to its design.
Material and methods. The study is based on the analysis of concepts of “General history”, “Universal world history”, “Global history” and the theories of the historical process of G.W.F. Hegel, K. Marx–F. Engels, and F. Fukuyama to E. Husserl, K. Jaspers, as well as concepts of historical memory of P. Nora, P. Hatton, Yu.M. Lotman. The methodological basis of research is the phenomenological concept of source study.
Results and discussion. Justified boundaries of “General history”, geographically covering the “spiritual Europe” (the Husserl's term), and chronological period from the turn of VII-VI centuries BC to the mid XX century. Respectively the project of extensive expansion of “General history” to “Universal world”/“Global” history by overcoming Eurocentrism has been questioned. It is shown that “Universal world”/ “Global” history is possible either as a global narrative, allowing any interpretation and not verifiable or as comparative-historical research to achieve a synthesis on the basis of the comparative analysis of different cultures, identifying both general and special characteristics. Explained the construction of the “Global history” on the basis of comparative source study – method comparative-historical research based on a theoretical understanding that the main unit of classification of sources – genus of historical sources – represents the forms of social human activity – the history of society. The method is based on neo-classical phenomenological concept of source studies, conceptual stretching back to the Russian version of neo-Kantianism (A.I. Vvedensky, A.S. Lappo-Danilevsky), the specificity of which was determined of special attention to the empirical object of historical knowledge – historical source. It is shown that the development of ideas about the object from a historical source to the system of types of historical sources and then – to the universal concept of “empirical reality of the historical world” (O.M. Medushevskaya) allowed to propose on this basis a method of constructing a “Global history”.
Conclusion. The construction of the “Universal world”/“Global” history is possible in nonclassical and postnonclassical models of science as narrative, dependent on to the will of the historian, in the neoclassical model of science – as a comparative study, based on the explication of the structure of global empirical object –, empirical reality of the historical world.
The aim of the article is to reveal new concepts and models, systems of argumentation, rethinking of main categories, orientation to new social disciplines and self-reflection in different directions of the world history in the 21st century.
In the 1990s world history relying on the achievements of global and postcolonial studies has been radically transformed and, after several decades of existence in the backyards of historical science, has regained its leading position. Studies conducted in the framework of world history have established new directions that are the result of critical and postmodern revolutions in philosophy (postcolonial criticism, first of all) and rely on a number of concepts and approaches developed in the course of anthropological, linguistic and cultural twists and turns.
Firstly, we mean global and transnational history, offering ways to construct a universal non-Eurocentric world. Secondly, world history, analyzing interactions between world systems and local civilizations (cultural transfer), and complex networks of mutual influences of various historical phenomena. Third, the international history of the formation and development of various international institutions. Fourth, the Big history, which claims not only to encompass "the whole world", but also "all the time", that is, a time beyond the social - "time of the Earth."
The attention of historians is switched to the study of social trajectories, cultural exchanges, multiple identities; there is a fundamental rejection of dualistic oppositions (Europe / third world, metropoly / colony, center / periphery, city / village, modernization / tradition). All variants of the "new world history" are alliances of history with different disciplines, up to the attempts at integration with biology, geology, and cosmology.
The next transformation of the historical science in the 2000s and especially in the last decade is unusually favorable precisely for the development of world history. Firstly, it is the renewed need for broad contexts and large narratives. Secondly, the "spatial turn" in the social sciences and in historiography in particular. Thirdly, the awakened interest of historians in the metaphysics of time and the idea of multitemporality.