?
Институциональная теория модерна: Иоганн Густав Дройзен
The article analyzes several crucial aspects of Johann Gustav Droysen’s theory of historiography (as presented in the collection of his lectures published under the title Historik). The significance and reception of Droysen’s legacy in contemporary historiography are examined primarily in the American and Russian contexts. The fundamental features of Droysen’s theory of historiography are then identified with emphasis on: validation of the autonomy of history as a science; radical constructivism; moderate relativism; presentism; and the extension of the subject matter of hermeneutics to existential and anthropological issues. The main part of the article is devoted to Droysen’s institutional theory and maintains that Historik provides more than a theory and methodology of historiography by also advancing an original institutional theory which serves as a direct link between Hegel’s philosophy and current social and political concepts. Droysen’s position on Hegel’s philosophy is considered, and the derivation of “the ethical world,” Droysen’s the principal category for institutional analysisis traced back to Hegel. Droysen’s theory of the state, which identifies it as the only source of legitimate violence and a mechanism for neutralizing conflicts in civil society and distinguishes between the notions of “power” and “violence,” is treated in detail.
Three main aspects of Droysen’s institutional theory are discussed. First, there is an analysis of his formal theoretical understanding of the concept of an “institution” as it compares to the basic modern philosophical and theoretical definitions of that concept. Then, the main substantive features of his institutional theory are examined. These include the three types of institutions (natural, ideal and practical), and the distinction between them will later play a prominent role in modern social theory and sociolog)'. Finally, Droysen’s account of the institutional dynamics of modernity is explicated as a taut equilibrium between the puruist of stability by institutions and the disruption of their stability by normative reflection and criticism.