On the civilizational approach to the study of history. Social science

look at abstracts similar to " Civilization approach to history"

Introduction 2
Civilization. Essence of the civilizational approach 3
Features of Russian civilization 10
Multidimensional vision of history 13
Conclusion 18
Bibliography 20

Introduction

Running a little ahead, we note that the leitmotif of many speeches today is the desire to replace the formational approach to the large-scale division of the historical process with a civilizational one. In the most clear form, this position is stated by its supporters as follows: to turn the concept of civilization, which historiography has so far operated only as a descriptive tool, into the leading (highest) paradigm of historical knowledge.

So what is civilization?

The very term "civilization" (from Latin civilis - civil, state) still does not have an unambiguous interpretation. In world historical and philosophical (including futurological) literature, it is used in four senses:

1. As a synonym for culture - for example, A. Toynbee and other representatives of the Anglo-Saxon schools in historiography and philosophy.

2. As a certain stage in the development of local cultures, namely the stage of their degradation and decline. Let us recall the sensational book of O.
Spengler's "The Decline of Europe".

3. How to step historical development humanity following barbarism. We meet such an understanding of civilization in L. Morgan, after him in F. Engels, today in A. Toffler (USA).

4. As a level (stage) of development of a particular region or a separate ethnic group. In this sense, one speaks of ancient civilization, Inca civilizations, etc.

We see that these understandings in some cases largely overlap and complement each other, in others they are mutually exclusive.

In order to define the concept of civilization, it is obviously necessary to first analyze its most essential features.

Civilization. The essence of the civilizational approach

Below we analyze the main features of civilization

First, civilization is the proper social organization of society. This means that the transitional era, the leap from the animal kingdom to society, is over; the organization of society according to the kinship principle was replaced by its organization according to the neighboring-territorial, macro-ethnic principle; biological laws receded into the background, submitting in their action to sociological laws.

Secondly, civilization from the very beginning is characterized by a progressive social division of labor and the development of information and transport infrastructure. Of course, this is not about the infrastructure characteristic of the modern wave of civilization, but by the end of barbarism, the leap from tribal isolation had already been completed. This makes it possible to characterize civilization as a social organization with a universal connection between individuals and primary communities.

Thirdly, the purpose of civilization is the reproduction and increase of social wealth. Strictly speaking, civilization itself was born on the basis of the surplus product that appeared (as a result of the Neolithic technical revolution and a sharp increase in labor productivity). Without the latter, it would be impossible to separate mental labor from physical labor, the emergence of science and philosophy, professional art, etc. Accordingly, social wealth should be understood not only as its material and material embodiment, but also as spiritual values, including free time necessary for the individual and society as a whole for their comprehensive development. The structure of social wealth also includes the culture of social relations.

Summing up the highlighted features, we can agree with the definition according to which civilization is the actual social organization of society, characterized by a general connection between individuals and primary communities in order to reproduce and increase social wealth.

A few words about the foundations (bases) of formations and civilizations, about the watershed between them. This question is still debatable, but, obviously, we must proceed from the fact that in both cases the basis is undoubtedly a material formation, although they belong to different spheres of social life: in the foundation of civilization as a whole and each from its stages lies the technical and technological basis, in connection with which it is reasonable to speak of three stages (waves) in the development of civilization - agricultural, industrial and information-computer. At the heart of the formation is the economic basis, that is, the totality of production relations.

Emphasizing the role of the technical and technological basis of civilization, one should by no means directly and only from it derive everything that characterizes a given particular society. In the real historical process, everything is much more complicated, because in the foundation of society, along with the technical and technological basis, there are (and occupy a worthy place) also natural (including demographic) conditions for the life of society and ethnic, in general, specific historical features of life and development. this society. All this in its totality constitutes the real foundation of the life of society as a system. By omitting any of these components from the interpretation of the historical process, we either distort the picture or are forced to abandon the solution of a specific problem altogether.

How, for example, is it possible to explain why, given the same technical and technological basis in principle, we find variants of historical development that are seriously different from each other?

Why, say, in most regions of the globe, the emergence of the state was the result of a process of class formation that had already gone far, and in some regions it was noticeably ahead of this process? Obviously, other things being equal, and above all, with the same technical and technological basis, there is some additional factor that determines the specifics of the phenomenon under consideration. In this case, natural and climatic conditions acted as a differentiating factor, predetermining the need for centralized efforts to build and operate large irrigation systems. Here, the state initially acted primarily in its economic and organizational incarnation, while in other regions everything began with the function of class suppression.

Or - why do the historical paths of different socio-ethnic communities differ from each other? It would be reckless to discount the ethnic characteristics of peoples. In particular, with all the general rejection of the concept of ethnogenesis and understanding of the essence of the ethnos by L.N. Gumilyov, one cannot fail to notice the rational grain that is contained in his judgments about passionarity as a measure of energy filling, activity and resistance of the ethnos to external influences. accounts and historical features of the development of the studied society. This remark is also true when solving the problems of the present, predicting the success or failure of the reforms being undertaken. Thus, optimism about the fate of the current political and economic reforms in our country is significantly reduced as soon as we begin to even slightly take into account our own historical heritage. After all, the main thing, obviously, is not what kind of inheritance we can refuse in the course of reforms, the main thing is what kind of inheritance we cannot refuse. And in our heritage there are also centuries-old layers of the patriarchal-communist, communal mentality with its both negative and positive aspects; and mass conformism, which has become flesh and blood in the last few decades; and no less massive disobedience; the absence of any significant democratic traditions, and much more.

All three considered components of the foundation are reflected by social psychology, and this reflection turns out to be a necessary link between the foundation of social life and the relations of production, the economic basis that are formed on this basis. Thus, the incompleteness of the traditional scheme of formation is found not only in the elimination of such important “bricks” as natural (including demographic) conditions and ethnic (generally historical) features from the foundation, but also in ignoring the socio-psychological component of social development: the basis and the add-in are found to be linked directly.

Numerous philosophical schools The twentieth century has been very intensively engaged and is engaged in the study of the phenomenon of civilization. In fact, it was at this time that the philosophy of civilization arose as an independent philosophical discipline. The followers of neo-Kantianism (Rikkert and M. Weber) considered it primarily as a specific system of values ​​and ideas that differ in their role in the life and organization of a society of one type or another. The concept of the German idealist philosopher O. Spengler is interesting. Its essence lies in the consideration of culture as an organism that has unity and is isolated from other similar organisms. Each cultural organism, according to Spengler, is measured in advance by the limit, after which the culture, dying, is reborn into civilization. Thus, civilization is seen as the opposite of culture. This means that there is no single universal culture and cannot be.

From this point of view of culture, the theory of
"local" civilizations of the English historian A. Toynbee. Toynbee gives his definition of civilization - "the totality of spiritual, economic, political means with which man is armed in his struggle against outside world." Toynbee created the theory of the historical circulation of culture, presenting world history as a collection of separate, closed and peculiar civilizations, the number of which varied from 14 to 21.
Each civilization, like an organism, goes through the stages of origin, growth, crisis (breakdown, decomposition). On this basis, he derived the empirical laws of the frequency of social development, driving force which is the elite, the creative minority, the bearer of the "life impulse".
Toynbee saw a single line of progressive development of mankind in religious evolution from primitive animistic beliefs through a universal religion to a single syncretic religion of the future.

In the light of all that has been said, the general meaning of the civilizational approach becomes clear - to build a typology public systems coming from certain, qualitatively different technical and technological bases. Prolonged disregard for the civilizational approach seriously impoverished our historical science and social philosophy, and prevented us from understanding many processes and phenomena. The restoration of rights and the enrichment of the civilizational approach will make our vision of history more multidimensional.

The red line of the development of civilization is the build-up of integration tendencies in society - tendencies that cannot be derived directly and only from the laws of functioning and development of this or that formation. In particular, outside the civilizational approach it is impossible to understand the essence and specifics of modern Western society, just as it is impossible to give a true assessment of the disintegration processes that unfolded on the scale of the former USSR and of Eastern Europe. This is all the more important because these processes are given out by many and taken as a movement towards civilization.

From the essence and structure of socio-economic formations, specific historical forms of organization of the social economy (natural, natural-commodity, commodity, commodity-planned) cannot be directly derived, since these forms are directly determined by the technical and technological basis underlying civilization. The conjugation of the forms of organization of the social economy with the waves (steps) of civilization makes it possible to understand that the naturalization of economic relations in any historical conditions is not a movement forward, along the line of the development of civilization: we are facing a backward historical movement.

The civilizational approach allows us to understand the genesis, specific traits and trends in the development of various socio-ethnic communities, which, again, are not directly related to the formational division of society.

With a civilizational approach, our ideas about the socio-psychological image of this particular society, its mentality are also enriched, and the active role of social consciousness appears more prominently, because many features of this image are a reflection of the technical and technological basis underlying one or another stage of civilization.

The civilizational approach is quite consistent with modern ideas about culture as an extra-biological, purely social mode of activity of man and society. Moreover, the civilizational approach allows us to consider culture in its entirety, without excluding any structural element. On the other hand, the very transition to civilization can be understood only in view of the fact that it was the key point in the formation of culture.

Thus, the civilizational approach allows one to delve deeply into another very important section of the historical process - the civilizational one.

Concluding the consideration of the civilizational approach, it remains to answer one question: how to explain the chronic lag of Marxism in the development and use of the civilizational approach?

Obviously, there was a whole range of reasons at work.

A. Marxism was formed to a very large extent as a Eurocentric doctrine, about which its founders themselves warned.
The study of history in its civilizational context involves the use of the comparative method as the most important, that is, comparative analysis different, often dissimilar local civilizations.
Since, in this case, the focus was on one region, which is a unity in origin and in its modern (meaning the 19th century) state, the civilizational aspect of the analysis was forced to be in the shadows.

B. On the other hand, F. Engels introduced the final limiter: civilization is what is before communism, it is a series of antagonistic formations. In terms of research, this meant that Marx and Engels were directly interested only in that stage of civilization from which communism was to arise. Torn out of the civilizational context, capitalism appeared to both the researcher and the reader exclusively (or primarily) in its formative guise.

C. Marxism is characterized by hypertrophied attention to the forces that disintegrate society, while at the same time a significant underestimation of the forces of integration, but civilization, in its original meaning, is a movement towards integration, towards curbing destructive forces. And if this is so, then the chronic lag of Marxism in the development of a civilizational concept becomes quite understandable.

D. It is easy to find a connection with the long "inattention" of Marxism to the problem of the active role of non-economic factors. Answering his opponents on this subject, Engels pointed out that the materialist understanding of history was formed in the struggle against idealism, due to which neither Marx nor he had for decades enough time, reasons, or strength to devote to non-economic phenomena (the state, spiritual superstructure, geographical conditions, etc.) the same attention as the economy. But after all, the technical and technological basis lying in the foundation of civilization is also a non-economic phenomenon.

Features of Russian civilization

Is Russia a special country or the same as everyone else? Both are true at the same time. Russia and a unique part of the world with features that are hypertrophied by its size and the specifics of its history, and an ordinary country, the exclusivity of which is no more than that of any of the other members of the universal human family. And no matter what they claim, masking their inferiority complex or simply guided by opportunistic considerations, interpreters of its “special” world fate and historical
"destiny", they will not be able to refute the obvious: Russia, that is, the people who inhabit it, are by no means inclined to once again fall out of world history just to emphasize its uniqueness. They understand that in the modern age it is simply impossible.

The specifics of Russia must also be imagined by its Western partners, who should neither harbor unnecessary fears about her, nor experience illusions. And then they will not be surprised that this country is so reluctant, with visible difficulty, suspicion, and even irritation accepts even the most benevolent advice and does not fit into the political and social models offered to it from outside. And maybe, without prejudice and allergies, they will be able to perceive the new, although not in everything similar to the Western, look that she will take on leaving the fitting room of history, if she finally decides, after trying different clothes, to forever take off the Stalinist overcoat, which has become in the eyes of many Russians almost a national costume.

Arguing that Russia is a "special civilization", Andrei Sakharov, for example, simultaneously expressed another idea. It is about the fact that our country must go through, albeit with a significant delay, the same civilizational stages of evolution as other developed countries. You involuntarily ask yourself: what point of view is more in line with the true state of affairs? In my opinion, one should proceed from the fact that Russia is a special civilization that has absorbed a lot of Western and Eastern over the course of many centuries and has melted something completely special in its cauldron. So, judging by some remarks, Sakharov himself believes. Passing the path of modernization, he rightly notes, Russia followed its own unique path.
He saw very different from other countries not only the past, but also the future of our fatherland, which is already largely determined by its past.
The special nature of our path suggests, among other things, that the same civilizational stages of development that the West went through, associated, for example, with the transition to democracy, civil society and the rule of law, will have noticeable differences in Russia from their foreign counterparts.
Each earthly civilization has its own prologue, its own path of development and its own epilogue, its own essence and forms.

The peculiarity, uniqueness of each civilization does not exclude their interaction, mutual influence, mutual penetration and, finally, even rapprochement, which is very characteristic of the 20th century. But at the same time, rejection, and confrontation, and a merciless struggle, waged not only in cold, but also in hot forms, and much more cannot be ruled out.

What are the features of Russian civilization? It seems that these features lie in the special organization of Russian public and state life; in the essence and structure of power, methods of its implementation; in the peculiarities of national psychology and worldview; in the organization of labor and life of the population; in the traditions, culture of numerous peoples of Russia, etc., etc. A very important feature (perhaps even the most important) of Russian civilization is a special relationship between the material and spiritual principles in favor of the latter. True, now this ratio is changing in favor of the first. And yet, from my point of view, the high role of spirituality in Russia will continue. And it will be for the benefit of both herself and the rest of the world.

This statement should not mean at all that the standard of living of Russians should remain low and be lower than in advanced countries. Vice versa.
It is highly desirable that it dynamically increase and eventually catch up with world standards. To achieve this goal, Russia has everything it needs. But, increasing the level of comfort of his life and work, a person must remain a highly spiritual and humane being.

Based on the foregoing, it is legitimate to question the statement
Sakharov that "Russia, due to a number of historical reasons ... found itself on the sidelines of the European world." A special civilization with its own path of development cannot be on the sidelines of another path. The foregoing does not at all exclude the possibility of comparing the levels of development of various civilizations, both past and present, their achievements and value for all mankind. But speaking about the levels of civilization of certain societies, one must take into account the specific stage of their development.

At the end of the 20th century, thanks to perestroika and post-perestroika, Russian society, in essence, for the first time in its history (1917 and the NEP years were the first attempt to break through to freedom, but, unfortunately, unsuccessful) acquired, albeit not quite complete and not quite guaranteed , but still freedom: economic, spiritual, informational. Without these freedoms, interest will not be born.
- the most important engine of any progress, the nation will not take place, etc.

But it is one thing to have the right or the freedoms themselves, and quite another thing to be able to use them, combining freedom with self-restraints, rigidly obeying the law. Unfortunately, our society is not yet fully prepared to rationally and prudently practice the newly acquired freedoms in Everyday life for the benefit of yourself and others. But it learns quickly, and it is hoped that the results will be impressive.

The sustainable long-term use of freedoms should have as its final result that Russia, as a “special civilization”, will reveal to the world all its potential and all its power and finally turn the course of its history into an evolutionary course. This is the main meaning and the highest goal of what is happening in our time.

Multidimensional vision of history

As already noted, in the course of modern discussions, there has clearly been a tendency to resolve the issue of the prospects for the application and the very fate of the formational and civilizational approaches on the basis of the “either-or” principle. In all such conceptions, historical science, in fact, is excluded from the scope of general science laws and, in particular, does not obey the correspondence principle, according to which the old theory is not completely denied, since it necessarily corresponds to something in the new theory, represents its particular, extreme case.

The problem that has arisen in historical science and social science as a whole can and must be solved according to the principle of "and - and". It is necessary to purposefully study and find such a conjugation of formational and civilizational paradigms that can be fruitfully applied to solving the problem of large-scale division of the historical process, which will make the very vision of history more multidimensional.

Each of the paradigms under consideration is necessary and important, but not sufficient on its own. Thus, the civilizational approach by itself cannot explain the causes and mechanism of the transition from one stage of civilization to another. A similar insufficiency is revealed when trying to explain why the integration trends in past history for thousands of years, starting with a slave-owning society, made their way in disintegration forms.

Both "formationists" and "civilizationists" have extensive opportunities to overcome one-sidedness and enrich their concepts.
In particular, the “formationists”, along with the task of freeing their concept from what has not stood the test of time, will have to make up for the decades-long lag of Marxism in the development of problems related to civilization.

The relationship between formational (with its economic basis) and civilizational (with its technical and technological basis) is real and tangible.
We are convinced of this as soon as we begin to match two linear schematic representations: the process of civilizational development of mankind and the process of its formational development (see diagram). When resorting to schemes, it is appropriate to recall K. Jaspers: “An attempt to structure history, to divide it into a number of periods, always leads to gross simplifications, but these simplifications can serve as arrows pointing to significant points.”

socialization

| Formation | Primitive | Slavehold | Feudal | Capitalism |
| new | society | ion | change | |
| Development | | | | |
|Civilization|Savagery |Barbarian|Agricultural |Industrial|Information-com|
| Ionic | | | Tvo | | naya | pyuternaya |
| Development | | | | | |

Pre-civilization period Waves of civilization

In some cases, as we see, on the same technical and technological basis (agricultural wave of civilization) grow, successively replacing each other, or in parallel - among different peoples differently- two fundamentally different socio-economic formations. In the top line of the diagram, the socio-economic formation (capitalism) "does not fit" into the wave that would seem to be put on it.
(industrial) and “invades” the next, so far free from designation, cell. This cell has not been named because nowhere in the world has the formation system following capitalism been clearly and definitely identified, although in developed countries the processes of socialization have been clearly outlined.

And yet, the scheme makes it possible to detect a significant superposition of two linear series of historical development on each other, although this connection is not rigid, much less automatic. It is mediated by a number of factors (natural, ethnic, and finally, socio-psychological). Not the last role among these mediating links is played by the form of organization of the social economy, determined by the technical and technological basis of this wave of civilization in conjunction with the corresponding degree of social division of labor and the degree of development of information and transport infrastructure.

An analysis of the historical process shows that despite the close interconnection of the technical and technological basis (and technical revolutions), this connection is very, very indirect, realized through a complex transmission mechanism.

The conjugation of formational and civilizational has a dialectically contradictory character, which is already revealed in the analysis of the transition to civilization as a social upheaval.

Here the question immediately arises: is the aforementioned upheaval identical with the social revolution that absorbed the main content of the transition from primitive society to the first class formation? It is hardly necessary to talk about complete identity (coincidence), if only because the beginning of the transition to civilization - and there was a certain logic in this - preceded the beginning of the transition to a class society.

But then the second question arises: if these two social upheavals are not identical, then to what extent do they still overlap in social space and how do they correlate in time? Obviously, the first upheaval precedes the second only to some extent, because, having arisen for integrative purposes, civilization in those specific historical conditions could fulfill this main function only in a disintegrative
(antagonistic) form. Hence the inconsistency of social institutions, their functions and activities in a class-antagonistic society.

In order to better understand the relationship between the two analyzed upheavals and the driving force behind their merger, it is advisable to at least dottedly indicate the essence of each of them.

The impetus for a radical social upheaval, called the transition to civilization, was technological revolution, which gave life to cultural and sedentary agriculture, that is, historically the first type of producing economy. Such was the starting position of the agricultural civilization.
The essence of the transition to civilization consisted in the displacement of kinship ties and relations (production, territorial, etc.) by purely and strictly social, suprabiological ones, and it was the transition to a productive economy that determined both the possibility and the need for such displacement.

As for the surplus product, it itself was also a consequence of the transition to a productive economy, a consequence of its increasing economic efficiency. The connections between the process of transition to civilization and the appearance of a surplus product can be defined as functional, derived from the same causal factor. Another thing is that, having come into being, the surplus product raised the question of that specific historical - and therefore the only possible - form in which the development of civilization will continue. Such a concrete historical form under those conditions could only be antagonistic, and one has to speak of antagonism here in two senses. First, to all your further development civilization consolidated the antagonism that arose in the depths of society, Secondly On the other hand, a certain antagonistic contradiction has developed between the integrating essence of civilization and the disintegrating form of its functioning within a whole series of socio-economic formations.

To consolidate their dominance, the emerging classes used the already established in the process of the transition to civilization that had begun. social institutions. This became possible because a) the social institutions themselves potentially contained the possibility of alienation; b) this possibility in those historical conditions could not be "muted". In order to
To "mute" it in the bud requires a mature political culture of society and, above all, of the masses. On the threshold of civilization, however, political culture (as well as the sphere of politics as a whole) was only just emerging.

The classes that took social institutions into their hands were thus able to leave a significant imprint on many other civilizational processes and subordinate them to their selfish class interests. (Since classes are phenomena of the formational order, their impact on civilizational processes expresses the essential side of the conjugation of formational and civilizational). So it happened with the process of separating spiritual production from material production (the privilege of doing mental labor was assigned to the exploiters), with the process of urbanization (the differences between city and countryside turned into an opposite, characterized by the exploitation of the countryside by the ruling classes of the city), with the process of crystallization of the personal element in history (vegetation of the broad masses of the people for centuries served as a background for the activities of prominent personalities from the exploiting layers).

Thus, both historical processes - the transition to civilization and the transition to the first class formation - superimposed on each other in the most significant way and together constituted such a revolution, which, in its cardinality, can only be compared with the processes of socialization currently taking place in developed, civilized countries.

Conclusion

Connecting the civilizational component to the analysis allows us to make our vision of both the historical perspective and the historical retrospective more panoramic, to better understand those elements of society that, in fact, turn out to be more closely related to the civilizational than to the formational.

Take, for example, the process of evolution of socio-ethnic communities.
When pairing the socio-ethnic series only with the formational series, the conclusion involuntarily suggests itself that the relationship between them is causal, fundamental. But this raises several questions. And the main one: if a specific form of a socio-ethnic community is decisively dependent on the economic mode of production, and on both sides of it - both on the level of productive forces and on the type of production relations, then how to explain that in some cases this community is preserved and with a fundamental change in the type of production relations
(nationality is characteristic of both slavery and feudalism), while in others, the type of community is preserved even during the transition to a new wave of civilization, to a new technical and technological basis (such is a nation that, apparently, will remain for the foreseeable future and in the conditions of a growing force of the information-computer wave of civilization)?

Obviously, in both cases there are factors that are more profound than formational, but less profound than civilizational, derived from the latter. Both in the case of a nationality and in the case of a nation, the final cause (causa finalis) is certain types of technical and technological basis that underlie the successive agricultural, industrial and information-computer waves of civilization. Thus, the technical and technological basis of the agricultural wave, causing the preservation of the natural-commodity form of organization of production throughout the wave, does not allow the formation of a single economic
(economic) life, that is, it imposes a ban on the transformation of a nationality into a nation. In the second case, the guarantor of the preservation of the nation as a form of community adequate to the given socio-economic conditions is again, in the final analysis, the technical and technological basis, and directly - lying above it (but deeper than formational) and genetically related to it forms of organization of the social economy. Commodity in ee classical form, commodity-planned and planned-commodity forms of organization of the social economy are united in the sense that they authorize the emergence, preservation, consolidation and development of the nation, because all three of these forms are characterized by the presence of marketability with an increase from zero to the optimum degree of its controllability (plannedness) .

So, the conjugation of the formational and civilizational is clearly seen in the example of the genesis and development of socio-ethnic communities.
Bibliography

Krapivensky S.E. Social Philosophy. – Volgograd, Press Committee,
1996.
V.A. Kanke. Philosophy. M., Logos, 1996.
Fundamentals of philosophy. Ed. E.V. Popova, M., "Vlados", 1997
Philosophy. Tutorial. Ed. Kokhanovsky V.P., R / Don., "Phoenix",
1998.

Tutoring

Need help learning a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Introduction

The term historiography is ambiguous both in the previous and in the modern scientific tradition. The concept itself comes from the Greek words istoria - investigation and grajw - I write, in exact translation - a description of the investigation. So, the first historiographer in Russia in 1747 was G.-F. Miller, then - Prince M.M. Shcherbatov. By personal decree of Alexander I, this title was granted in 1803 to N.M. Karamzin. In the 19th century, many prominent Russian historians aspired to receive the honorary title of historiographer. However, in the middle of the 20th century, a new scientific content of this term finally took shape and took shape: historiography is the history of historical science.

Tasks of historiography:

one). Assimilation of the laws of development of historical science through the study of the work of its specific servants;

2). Teaching the principles of historiographic analysis and the ability to navigate in various areas of historical thought;

3). Formation of a careful attitude to tradition, the personality of a historian, the principles of scientific ethics.

Currently, there are many concepts (approaches) explaining the origin and subsequent evolution of the state and law, ranging from religious theories to Marxist and other left-radical theories that view the history of state and law mainly through the prism of class struggle.

Now, in the light of the changes taking place in Russian society and consciousness, the literature of recent years shows the limited and one-sided views on history in the light of the Marxist five-term formational periodization of the historical process that has prevailed for several decades. The canonized nature of the prevailing historical scheme gave impetus to the search for other approaches, independent of the will of people of industrial, personal, subjective relations.

In this test, we will consider in more detail two approaches to the study of history: civilizational and formational.

1. Civilization approach

This approach began in the 18th century. Bright adherents of this theory are M. Weber, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, and others. In domestic science, his supporters were K.N. Leontiev, N. Ya. Danilevsky, P.A. Sorokin. The word "civilization" comes from the Latin "civis", which means "city, state, civil".

From the point of view of this approach, the main structural unit is civilization. Initially, this term denoted a certain level of social development. The emergence of cities, writing, statehood, social stratification of society - all these were specific signs of civilization.

In a broad concept, civilization is generally understood as a high level of development of social culture.

Until now, adherents of this approach are arguing about the number of civilizations. N.Ya. Danilevsky identifies 13 original civilizations, A. Toynbee - 6 types, O. Spengler - 8 types.

There are a number of positive aspects in the civilizational approach.

The principles of this approach can be applied to the history of one country or another, or a group of them. This methodology has its own peculiarity, in that this approach is based on the study of the history of society, taking into account the individuality of regions and countries.

This theory suggests that history can be viewed as a multi-variant, multi-linear process.

This approach assumes the unity and integrity of human history. Civilizations as systems can be compared with each other. As a result of this approach, one can better understand historical processes and fix their individuality.

Highlighting certain criteria for the development of civilization, it is possible to assess the level of development of countries, regions, peoples.

In the civilizational approach, the main role is assigned to the human spiritual, moral and intellectual factors. Mentality, religion, culture are of particular importance for assessing and characterizing civilization.

The main disadvantage of the methodology of this approach is the shapelessness of the criteria for identifying types of civilization. In the theory of N.Ya. Danilevsky, cultural and historical types of civilization are divided into a combination of 4 main elements: political, religious, socio-economic, cultural.

This theory of Danilevsky encourages the application of the principle of determinism in the form of dominance. But the nature of this dominance has a subtle meaning.

Yu.K. Pletnikov was able to identify 4 civilizational types: philosophical and anthropological, general historical, technological, sociocultural.

1) Philosophical-anthropological model. This type is the basis of the civilizational approach. It makes it possible to more clearly present the uncompromising difference between civilizational and formational studies of historical activity. The civilizational approach explains this approach as a revival of the ideas of outdated cyclicity and anthropologism.

2) General historical model. Civilization is a special kind of a particular society or their community. According to the value this term the main signs of civilization are civil status, statehood, urban-type settlements. In public opinion, civilization is opposed to barbarism and savagery.

3) Technological model. The way of development and formation of civilization is social technologies of reproduction and production of immediate life.

4) Sociocultural model. In the 20th century there was a "interpenetration" of the terms culture and civilization. At an early stage of civilization, the concept of culture dominates. In particular, civilization is compared not with culture as a whole, but with its rise or fall. For example, for O. Spengler, civilization is the most extreme and artificial state of culture. It bears a consequence, as the completion and outcome of culture. F. Braudel believes, on the contrary, that culture is a civilization that has not reached its social optimum, its maturity, and has not ensured its growth.

Theories of local civilizations are based on the fact that there are separate civilizations, large historical communities that have a certain territory and their own characteristics of cultural, political, socio-economic development.

Arnold Toynbee, one of the founders of the theory of local civilizations, believed that history is not a linear process. This is the process of life and death of civilizations not interconnected with each other in different parts of the Earth. Toynbee singled out local and main civilizations. The main civilizations (Babylonian, Sumerian, Hellenic, Hindu, Chinese, etc.) left a pronounced mark on the history of mankind and had a secondary influence on other civilizations. Local civilizations merge within the national framework, there are about 30 of them: German, Russian, American, etc. The challenge thrown from outside of civilization, Toynbee considered the main driving forces. Thus, all civilizations go through stages: the birth, growth, breakdown and decay, ending with the complete disappearance of civilization.

Thus, within the framework of the civilizational approach, comprehensive schemes are created that reflect the general patterns of development for all civilizations.

2. Formative approach

In the teachings of Marx, the main position in explaining the driving forces of the historical process and the periodization of history is occupied by the concept of socio-economic formations. The foundations of any socio-political organization K. Marx made this or that mode of production. The main production relations are property relations. All the diversity of the life of society at different stages of its development, includes a socio-political formation.

K. Marx assumed several stages in the development of society:

one). Primitive communal;

2). slaveholding;

3). feudal;

4). Capitalist;

5). Communist.

Thanks to the social revolution, there is a transition from one social-economic formation to another. The emergence of a new formation is determined by the victory of the ruling class, which carries out revolutions in all spheres of life. In Marxist theory, revolution and class wars play a significant role. The main driving force of history was the class struggle. According to Marx, the “locomotives of history” were revolutions.

During the last 80 years, the dominant point of view, based on the formational approach, was the materialistic concept of history. The main advantage of this idea is that it creates a clear explanatory model of historical development. Human history is presented to us as a natural, progressive, objective process. The driving forces and the main stages, processes, etc. are clearly identified.

In the formational approach, a decisive role is given to non-personal factors, and a person is of secondary importance. It turns out that a person is just a screw in the theory of an objective mechanism driving historical development. It turns out that the human, personal content of the historical process is underestimated.

The formational concept assumes that the development of the historical process will proceed from the classless primitive communal phase through the class phase to the classless communist phase. In the theory of communism, on the proof of which many efforts have been spent, in any case, an era will come when everyone will benefit according to his ability, and receive according to his needs.

Conclusion

The formational approach to understanding the historical process involves a change of formations, the existence of which depends on the development of material production. Marx did not assert globality of this nature, his followers did. Although on present stage development of society, there is dissatisfaction with the formal understanding of the historical process, since in the formation economic relations determine all other relations (this understanding is in the spirit of economic materialism). The civilizational approach, in contrast to the formational approach, reflects attention not only to economic aspects, but also to the socio-cultural dimensions of society, spiritual attitude. He talks about the continuity and evolution of development. If in the formational approach there is predetermination, direction, then in the civilizational one there is the multivariance of history. However, despite the different understanding of history in both approaches, despite all the pluses and minuses in each of them, both approaches I have considered - formational and civilizational - make it possible to consider the historical process from different angles, therefore they do not so much deny as complement each other. Probably, in the future, social scientists will be able to synthesize both of these approaches, avoiding the extremes of each of them.

In modern social science, two main approaches to the study of the historical development of society have developed: formational and civilizational.

1. The formational approach (developed in Marxist theory) considers the historical process from the point of view of development and change in types of production and forms of ownership.

The method of production of material goods, according to K. Marx, determines historical type society, which he called the socio-economic formation.

The essence of a certain stage of history is embodied by a socio-economic formation, a type of social structure in which the basis (economic relations, primarily property relations) determines the political and legal superstructure and the forms of social consciousness associated with it. History, according to the views of K. Marx, is a natural-historical process of changing one socio-economic formation to another (primitive-communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and communist).

Production method - key concept formational approach to the analysis of history. The method of production of material goods, according to K. Marx, determines the historical type of society, which he called the socio-economic formation. The mode of production is the unity of the productive forces of society and production relations. As the productive forces grow, the old relations of production begin to hinder the development of production. As a result of the discrepancy between the development of productive forces and the level of production relations, a specific type of society, a socio-economic formation (for example, feudalism, capitalism) is replaced. As a result, not only the type of production is changing, but the whole social life.

Thus, the formational approach to history considers the historical process as a process of natural-historical change of one socio-economic formation by another. The theoretical basis for this was the idea of ​​the objectivity of social (primarily production) relations, which, being reproduced, are the basis for the development of various socio-economic formations as special types of social organisms (primitive communal, slave-owning, feudal, capitalist and communist). Formations differ in the way of production of material wealth, which basically determines the spiritual life of each era. According to this understanding of society social relations, based on the domination of private property, give rise to antagonisms associated with the class struggle, which in the end must end with the destruction of private property and the building of a classless society, i.e. communism.

2. The civilizational approach to history reveals broader facets of the development of society. With this approach to history, qualitative differences in the spiritual and material culture of peoples, lifestyles and beliefs, in socio-political institutions, customs and traditions of ethnic groups, etc. are studied.

Civilization is the key concept of the civilizational approach to the analysis of history.

The term "civilization" (from Latin civilis - urban, state, civil) appeared in the middle of the 18th century. and was used by the French Enlightenment, who, using this term, characterized a society based on the principles of reason and justice. Such a society acted as an alternative to "barbarism".

Nowadays the term "civilization" has different semantic meanings. It is most often understood as:

The stage of the historical development of mankind, following savagery and barbarism (L. Morgan, F. Engels);

A synonym for culture (French enlighteners, A. Toynbee);

The level (stage) of development of a particular region or a separate ethnic group (in the expression "ancient civilization");

A certain stage of decline and degradation of culture (O. Spengler, N. Berdyaev);

Characteristics of the technical and technological side of society (D. Bell, A. Toffler).

The civilizational approach to the analysis of history is associated with the names of N. Ya. Danilevsky (1822-1885), O. Spengler (1880-1936), A. Toynbee (1889-1975), K. Jaspers (1883-1969) and P. A. Sorokin (1889-1968). According to their views, history is the development of diverse human civilizations.

N.Ya. Danilevsky calls them "cultural-historical types", O. Spengler - "great cultures", A. Toynbee - "local civilizations", P. Sorokin - "large cultural supersystems". These cultural-historical types, great cultures, local civilizations, large cultural supersystems determine the life and organization of society, the mentality and behavior of individuals, specific historical processes and trends. P. Sorokin believed that their study helps to understand the nature and causes of changes in human society, as well as to control and direct historical processes according to the desired direction.

N. Danilevsky in the book “Russia and Europe. A look at cultural and political relations Slavic world to the German-Slavic" (1871) put forward a qualitatively new for his time concept of the development of world history. It was the theory of local civilizations, i.e., such cultural and historical types, in which the features of the religious and national self-consciousness of the peoples included in one type or another are collected and generalized.

Only a few peoples were able to create great civilizations and become "cultural-historical types." N. Ya. Danilevsky lists 10 such civilizations: Egyptian, Assyrian-Babylonian-Phoenician-Chaldean (or ancient Semitic) Chinese, Indian, Iranian, Jewish, Greek, Roman, New Semitic (or Arabian) Germano-Roman (or European). Two civilizations - Mexican and Peruvian - died at an early stage of development. At the same time, the thinker emphasized that the youngest and most promising cultural and historical type is being formed - the Slavic type, which owns the future.

O. Spengler in the book “The Decline of Europe. Essays on the morphology of world history, following N. Ya. Danilevsky, rejects the division world history into ancient, medieval and modern. He accomplished, in his own words, the “Copernican revolution” in science that history appears not as a single process, but as “a multitude of powerful cultures, growing with primitive force from the depths of the country that gave birth to them, to which they are strictly attached.” throughout its existence."

Culture goes through an approximately thousand-year cycle of development, including three stages: youth (mytho-symbolic culture), flourishing (metaphysical-religious culture), decline (ossified culture).

Dying, culture is reborn into civilization: it is a transition from creativity to sterility, from formation to mechanical work. “The modern era is the era of civilization, not culture,” states Spengler.

According to Spengler, the decline of Europe as a process of degeneration of culture into civilization began in the 20th century. A "mass" man appeared, devoid of internal impulses for development. If culture creates "in depth", then civilization - "in breadth", the organic rhythm of development is replaced by the bare pathos of space. The aggressive policy becomes a symptom of the degeneration of culture. Technological progress, sports, politics, consumption - these are the main areas of activity of the mass "man of civilization". Skepticism reigned in philosophy during this period, the recognition of the relativity of all truths, the criticism of all worldviews through the clarification of their historical conditionality. The individuality of a person is entirely determined by the individuality of the cultural whole. In the era of "decline" all attempts to revive religious feelings, high art are meaningless, we must abandon attempts to resuscitate the soul of culture and indulge in pure technicism.

According to the English historian and sociologist A. Toynbee, humanity is a collection of individual civilizations. The determinant for each civilization are stable types of thinking and feeling, expressed primarily in religion. Civilization arises as a reaction to some unique historical situation, whether it is a “response” to “external” or “internal challenges”, threats from neighbors, depletion of natural resources. The originality of the "answers" is expressed in the ability of the creative minority (elite) to give an adequate response to the challenges of their time.

A. Toynbee counts 21 civilizations in world history and gives them a detailed description. The mechanism of the emergence of civilization is the interaction of challenge and response to the challenge: the environment continuously challenges society, and society, through the creative minority, responds to these challenges. The quality of responses to challenges determines the flourishing or decline in the development of civilization.

In interpreting the historical process, P. Sorokin proceeds from the understanding of social reality as a super-individual socio-cultural reality, not reducible to material reality and endowed with a system of meanings, values ​​and norms. In the work "Social and Cultural Dynamics" he chooses the value factor as the most important and determining factor in the development of mankind.

Value is the basis of any culture. The dominant values ​​cover the entire spiritual life of society: science, philosophy, religion, law, art, politics, economics. Depending on the dominant values, P. Sorokin distinguishes three types of culture:

1) ideational (religious values ​​are the main ones);

2) sensual (sensuality as a value is embodied in the principle: to live "here and now", which means orientation towards achieving sensual pleasures, life pleasures, material success);

3) idealistic (orientation towards positive values, mainly moral, among which love as a value stands out. “Love gives rise to love, hate gives rise to hatred,” Sorokin notes. A peaceful and harmonious society is based on relationships of love and harmony).

Sorokin introduced the concept of “energy of love”, with the help of which he explored the huge spiritual resources of love in the rallying of people and peoples. It is necessary to radiate the positive energy of love and stop the spread negative impact hate. It is this cultural approach that will promote individual creativity and collective solidarity.

In our time, the Japanese futurologist F. Fukuyama put forward the concept of the “end of history” as a consequence of the departure from the historical arena of powerful ideologies and the states based on them. Other researchers (for example, the American scientist S. Huntington) believe, on the contrary, that the world is now facing a bifurcation point, where the ratio of order and chaos changes dramatically and a situation of unpredictability sets in. In this regard, a conflict is predicted between civilizations existing on the planet for resources, energy, information, etc.

So, we note that the civilizational approach to history makes it possible to identify certain features, features of the life of peoples in different spheres of their life. For example, the ancient Greek civilization was characterized by a polis organization of people's life. In the system of values ​​of ancient civilization, the policy acted as the highest good, and the benefit of individuals was linked to the well-being of the whole - the policy.

Modern Western civilization has its own distinctive features: the desire for constant renewal, pragmatism, a high level of science and technology, the development of communications, the dominance of the city in the cultural life of society. There is a trend towards the formation of a single economic, military, political and cultural space: the formation of supranational organizations, a single currency, etc.

The central problem of the civilizational approach to history is the problem of the relationship between civilization and culture. Traditionally, the concept of "civilization" was identified with the concept of "culture". However, unlike the term "civilization", the term "culture" is also applicable to the stage of savagery of human society, when people were almost completely dependent on nature. One can speak of civilization only when a person began to move from gathering to productive forms of labor, which led to the emergence of classes, the state, law, religion, and the original forms of art.

Formed during the formation of states, a civilized society continues to progress. Modern sociologists (in particular, the American historian and sociologist O. Toffler) represent the historical process as successive waves (stages): pre-industrial, industrial, post-industrial. The post-industrial civilization is characterized by extensive automation of human activity based on information technology. Today, according to a number of scientists, humanity is moving towards the establishment on Earth of a single form of existence of society - a globalizing society.

In conclusion, we note that the formational and civilizational approaches to history were a synthesis of many ideas, concepts and theories. Both approaches have convincingly demonstrated their effectiveness. Based on them, historians have obtained significant results in the study of problems of historical development.

We plan to conditionally outline and meaningfully "inventory" the main civilizations or large civilizational formations that exist today (Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Arab-Islamic, Western in two versions - Europe and North America, African, Latin American, the region of Southeast Asia, and finally, Russia) and explore the possibilities of their diverse interaction in modern world.

The last decade and a half in the Russian scientific literature marked by a sharply increased interest in civilizational issues. ... True, in last years this wave seems to be starting to subside somewhat. Apparently, this is due to the revealed research difficulties - the lack of clarity of the very concept of "civilization", the fragility of its criteria and constitutive features, the arbitrariness of the premises or the lack of evidence for certain assessments and conclusions, and possibly also with the introduction of ideological biases into the scientific consideration of the subject. These difficulties, it seems to us, also occur in modern foreign literature on civilizations. Therefore, a new impetus is needed to help raise the development of civilizational problems to a new level.

Why is the study of civilizations important and relevant today? Let us point out at least four reasons.

The cognitive factor. Civilizational issues reveal a new section of the sciences of society and man, and correcting other branches - history, sociology, economics, etc. At the time, F. Braudel put forward the concept of "world-economy" - regions and spaces that, despite they operate the general laws of economic life, have at the same time irremovable specifics. In the same way, one can speak of civilizations as “world-formations”, where the human nature, unified in its main manifestations, acquires a qualitative originality. In addition, it is precisely “civilization studies” that clearly reveals that the spiritual components of human society (values, norms, spiritual postulates, etc.) cannot be reduced to “secondary” elements derived from material existence, economics, natural factor etc.: once having appeared, in many situations they become the basic components of the historical process. All this opens up new opportunities for humanitarian knowledge.

Contradictions of the modern era. The process of globalization taking place before our eyes is a double-edged one. Involving civilizations in the global development, it at the same time, as it takes place in the form of active expansion of the more developed Western world, suppresses them. This circumstance becomes for these civilizations not only oppressive, but also mobilizing, and therefore stimulates interest in the relevant issues.

The search for cultural identity. The foregoing is especially important for some civilizational formations (for example, , Latin America or Russia), for which the rethinking of the national cultural heritage, clarification of civilizational identity is thought to be a necessary factor in overcoming the serious crisis tendencies experienced by these societies.

The search for effective intercivilizational interaction. In the works of S. Huntington, the very reaction to which was a convincing indicator of the relevance and timeliness of the study of civilizational problems, emphasis is placed on the clash of civilizations. Tendencies of intercivilizational confrontation do take place in the modern world. But there are also opposite trends - the growing interest of various civilizations in each other, their interaction. These tendencies are especially important in the context of globalization and its "West-centered" distortions.

Rashkovsky E.B., Khoros V.G. World civilizations and modernity (to the methodology of analysis). In the book: East - West - Russia. Sat. articles. M.: Progress-Tradition, 2002. -

Questions and tasks

1. What research difficulties, according to the authors, accompany the application of the civilizational approach?

• On the subject of the philosophy of history
  • On the subject of the philosophy of history
  • The relevance of the philosophy of history
  • The structure of historiosophical knowledge
    • The structure of historiosophical knowledge - page 2
• The concept of the bihemispheric structure of the world: the meaning of the East-West dichotomy
  • Crisis of Eurocentrism
  • Bihemispheric model of world history
  • Prospects for post-industrial civilization on the horizon open history
    • Prospects for post-industrial civilization in the horizon of open history - page 2
    • Prospects for post-industrial civilization in the horizon of open history - page 3
    • Prospects for post-industrial civilization in the horizon of open history - page 4
  • Eastern and Western Megacycles of World History
    • Eastern and Western Megacycles of World History - page 2
    • Eastern and Western Megacycles of World History - page 3
• Problems of the democratization of the historical process
  • Historical and non-historical peoples: the drama of "catch-up development"
  • The crisis of the postulates of historical rationality
    • Crisis of postulates of historical rationality - page 2
  • Historicism and finalism
  • Paradoxes of historical creativity
    • Paradoxes of historical creativity - page 2
    • Paradoxes of historical creativity - page 3
  • Utopia of progressivism and its alternatives
• Global Peace: Collisions of Gaining a Human Perspective
  • « open society» like western model global peace
    • "Open society" as a Western model of the global world - page 2
  • Limitations of the North-South dichotomy in global studies
  • Paradoxes of intercultural exchange in the global world
    • Paradoxes of intercultural exchange in the global world - page 2
  • Global projects of the global world
    • Global projects of the global world - page 2
    • Global projects of the global world - page 3
• The meaning of history
  • Antique, Christian and Enlightenment view of history
    • Antique, Christian and Enlightenment view of history - page 2
    • Antique, Christian and Enlightenment view of history - page 3
    • Antique, Christian and Enlightenment view of history - page 4
    • Antique, Christian and Enlightenment view of history - page 5
  • The first paradox of world history: "from boundless freedom to boundless despotism"
  • The Second Paradox of World History: "The Misadventures of Total Order"
    • The second paradox of world history: "the misadventures of total order" - page 2
  • The Third Paradox of World History: "Blessed are the Poor in Spirit"
    • The Third Paradox of World History: "Blessed are the Poor in Spirit" - page 2
  • The meaning and purpose of history
    • The meaning and purpose of history - page 2
• German School of Philosophy of History
  • General characteristics of the German historiosophical tradition
  • G. Hegel's school and the concept of the universal historical process
  • Organology of the German "historical school". A. Müller, F. Schelling, W. Humboldt
  • Prussian school. I.G. Droysen
  • Positivism in German historiosophy. W. Wundt
  • School of psychologizing philosophers of life. F. Nietzsche, W. Dilthey
  • Southwestern (Baden) neo-Kantian school. W. Windelband, M. Weber
  • Marburg neo-Kantian school. G. Cohen, P. Natorp
  • The historical dynamics of the German school in the context of modernity
• French School of Philosophy of History: Anthropological Foundations of European Civilization
  • General characteristics of the French historiosophical tradition
  • Historiosophical constructivism of R. Descartes
  • "Tragic realism" of the historiosophy of B. Pascal
  • French Enlighteners on the Philosophy of History
    • French enlighteners about the philosophy of history - page 2
    • French enlighteners about the philosophy of history - page 3
    • French enlighteners about the philosophy of history - page 4
    • French enlighteners about the philosophy of history - page 5
  • French romantic historiography. F. Guizot, O. Thierry, F. Mignet, J. Michelet
  • Historiosophical tradition of utopian socialism. Saint Simon
  • Positivism in French historiosophy. O. Comte, E. Lavisse
  • Biologizing concepts of the philosophy of history. J.A. Gobineau, V. Lyapuzh
  • Historiosophical sociologism of E. Durkheim
  • School "Annals"
    • School "Annals" - page 2
  • New historical school. P. Nora
  • Rationalist direction of French historiosophy. R. Aron
  • The historical nihilism of the "new philosophers"
  • Historiosophy of the New Right. A. de Benoist, P. Vial, I. Blo
• Philosophical and historical thought of Russia
  • General characteristics of the Russian historiosophical tradition
  • "Ancient wisdom"
    • "Ancient wisdom" - page 2
  • Ideodogeme "Moscow - the third Rome"
  • Russian Enlightenment and the Search for National Identity
  • Controversy between Slavophiles and Westernizers. Russian idea
    • Controversy between Slavophiles and Westernizers. Russian idea - page 2
  • Historiosophical landmarks of Westerners
  • Models of cultural-historical types
    • Models of cultural-historical types - page 2
  • sociological direction. "Progress Formula"
  • School of G. Plekhanov and "legal Marxism"
    • School of G. Plekhanov and "legal Marxism" - page 2
  • Metaphysics of unity Vl. Solovyov. History as a Divine-human process
    • Metaphysics of unity Vl. Solovyov. History as a Divine-human process - page 2
  • Religious materialism S. Bulgakov
  • Historiosophy of unity L. Karsavin
  • Historiosophy of the Eurasians
    • Historiosophy of the Eurasians - page 2
  • N. Berdyaev: the doctrine of the freedom of the spirit and the end of history
    • N. Berdyaev: the doctrine of the freedom of the spirit and the end of history - page 2
• Interpretations of history and paradigms of historical knowledge
  • On the Possibilities and Limits of Historiosophical Interpretation
  • The cyclical paradigm of history
    • Cyclic paradigm of history - page 2
    • Cyclic paradigm of history - page 3
    • Cyclic paradigm of history - page 4
    • Cyclic paradigm of history - page 5
  • The paradigm of historical progress
    • Paradigm of historical progress - page 2
  • Postmodern paradigm of history
• Formational and civilizational approaches to history: pro et contra
  • Formations or civilizations?
  • About the formational approach to history
    • On the formational approach to history - page 2
    • On the formational approach to history - page 3
  • On the correlation of formational and civilizational approaches to history
    • On the correlation of formational and civilizational approaches to history - page 2
  • On possible ways to modernize the formational approach
    • On possible ways to modernize the formational approach - page 2
    • On possible ways to modernize the formational approach - page 3
    • On possible ways to modernize the formational approach - page 4

On the essence of the civilizational approach to history

If the essence of the formational approach to history is revealed quite easily, since the formational theory is a more or less holistic doctrine, then the situation with the civilizational approach is more complicated. There is no single civilizational theory as such. The very term "civilization" is very ambiguous.

For example, in the Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary» its three meanings are given:

1. synonymous with culture;
2. the level or stage of social development of material and spiritual culture;
3. stage of social development following barbarism.

Recently, among domestic historians and philosophers, attempts have become more frequent to somehow streamline, bring the existing concepts of civilization into some logically verified system. There is even a proposal to allocate new science called "civilography".

But as one of the researchers admits, the desire to turn “the theory of civilizations into a methodological basis for studying world and national history” “contradicts the insufficient research of the theory of civilizations itself as a subject of philosophical and historical knowledge, the reasons for its emergence and the laws of development, the limits of its applicability.”

However, there is no reason to speak of the "theory of civilizations" as a unified scientific theory. In fact, there are various theories of civilizations. And the civilizational approach itself is a kind of summative set of similar methodological guidelines and principles. This is where the weak points of the civilizational approach come from. Chief among them is the amorphousness, the vagueness of the criteria by which civilizations and their types are distinguished; weak certainty of causal relationships between these criteria.

An analysis of the evolution of the concept of "civilization" over the past 2.5 centuries (since the appearance of this term in science) shows that the process of its formation as a scientific category proceeded very slowly and, in essence, has not yet been completed. I.N. Ionov, who studied this issue, distinguishes three stages of this evolution. The first covers the period from the middle of the 18th to the middle of the 19th centuries. Its representatives are F. Voltaire, A. Fergusson, A.R. Turgot, I.G. Herder, F. Guizot, Hegel and others.

At this stage, reckless historical optimism dominates, the convergence (even merging) of the ideas of civilization and progress, the linear-stage characteristic of the civilization process historical events lined up in a linear order, and events that did not correspond to the scheme were cut off).

The concept of "civilization" was used exclusively in the singular, denoting humanity as a whole, and had a pronounced evaluative character (savagery, barbarism, civilization).

National and cultural differences were considered as secondary, associated with the characteristics of the environment, race, cultural tradition. At this stage, ideas about history as a set of unique local cultures also appeared (I.G. Herder), but they remained unclaimed at that time.

At the second stage (the second half of the 19th century), theories of the historical process continue to be dominated by ideas about the integrity and coherence of history. Thinkers proceed from the fundamental compatibility of logical and historical approaches to its study.

The analysis of the cause-and-effect relationships of reality, the desire for historical synthesis prevails. The sociologization of theories of civilization remains the main trend in their development (ideas are being developed about the determining role of the geographical factor, about the development of the structure of society in the process of its adaptation to environment). But historical optimism is noticeably diminishing. The idea of ​​progress is being questioned more and more. Representatives of this stage O. Comte, G. Spencer, G.T. Buckle, G. Rickert, E.D. Yurkheim and others. Ideas about a multitude of local civilizations begin to develop.

At the third stage (XX century), ideas about history as a set of local civilizations began to dominate - sociocultural systems generated by specific conditions of activity, characteristics of people inhabiting a given region and interacting in a certain way on the scale of world history (O. Spengler, A. Toynbee , P.A. Sorokin and others).

An analysis of the subjective motivations of activity associated with the worldview of different cultures began to play an important role. The explanatory principle of history, which dominated the previous stages, was replaced by the hermeneutic principle (the principle of understanding). Not a trace remains of historical optimism, as they say. Researchers are disappointed in the rational approach to understanding history.

The idea of ​​a world civilization turns out to be shifted to the periphery and occurs only as a derivative of the interaction of different civilizations, but not as a model for placing them on the scale of progress. The monistic conception of history is finally replaced by a pluralistic one. Representatives of this stage are V. Dilthey, M. Weber, K. Jaspers, S.N. Eisenstadt, F. Bagby, M. Blok, L. Febvre, F. Braudel and others.

There is a rather curious logic in the given scheme of stages in the development of theories of civilization. The connection between the first and second stages is inherent, for all their differences, deep continuity. The moment of denial is partial. The connection between the second and third stages is characterized, on the contrary, by a deep break in continuity. Such a break in the continuity of development does not happen often in science. Probably, we should expect the return to the philosophy of history of the main ideas of the first and second stages (the ideas of unity, the integrity of history, etc.), but, of course, in a different form.

The starting point in the civilizational approach is the concept of "civilization". What is it? According to some domestic researchers, civilization is actually a social organization of society (i.e., different from the organization of natural, tribal), which is characterized by a general connection between individuals and primary communities in order to reproduce and increase social wealth.

According to others, civilization "is a set of relations between people of the same confession, as well as between the individual and the state, sacralized by a religious or ideological doctrine, which ensures the stability and duration in historical time of the fundamental standards of individual and social behavior." However, almost any long-existing community can be defined in this way (what is, for example, a Masonic lodge or the Sicilian mafia?).

According to others, civilization is “a community of people united by fundamental spiritual values ​​and ideals, having stable special features in the socio-political organization, culture, economy and a psychological sense of belonging to this community.” But it is important, avoiding Marxist monism - a rigid attachment to the mode of production, not to lose sight of the danger of another monism - no less rigid attachment to a spiritual-religious or psychological principle.

What is meant by "civilization"? Taking into account the evolution of this concept, we can say that civilizations are large, long-term self-sufficient communities of countries and peoples, identified on a socio-cultural basis, the originality of which is ultimately determined by natural, objective conditions of life, including the mode of production.

These communities in the process of their evolution go through (here we can agree with A. Toynbee) the stages of emergence, formation, flourishing, breakdown and decomposition (death). The unity of world history acts as the coexistence of these communities in space and time, their interaction and interconnection.

The identification of these communities is, therefore, the first prerequisite for a civilizational approach to history in its modern sense. The second prerequisite is the deciphering of the sociocultural code that ensures the existence and reproduction of communities, their originality and difference from each other.

The key concept here is culture in all its diversity. And here a lot depends on what aspects of it are in the spotlight. Most often, the modern supporter of the civilizational approach comes to the fore with spiritual culture rooted in the people, or mentality (mentality), understood in the narrow sense of the word, i.e. as hidden layers of social consciousness.

But there is no escape from the question: how and where did this socio-cultural code come from? Here one cannot do without referring to the objective conditions for the existence of the community. Objective conditions are both natural (natural environment), and anthropological, rooted in the prehistoric era, and social (the way people provide themselves with livelihoods, intercommunal influences, etc.) factors. Thus, the sociocultural code is the result of the interaction of various factors.

The main thing here is the process of humanization, civilization, ennoblement of the very subject of history, i.e. individual and genus Homo sapiens.

Of course, history is not Nevsky Prospekt, not a freeway of human civilization. No one set goals in the first place. The very existence of people, their behavior and activities set in motion the mechanism of their civilization. With great difficulty they found ways and means to ennoble themselves.

They stumbled and fell, losing some of their acquired human traits, shed the blood of their own brethren in internecine wars, sometimes losing all human appearance, doomed millions to death and suffering, to poverty and hunger for the sake of the well-being and progress of the few, for the sake of the breakthrough of these latter to new horizons of culture and humanity in order to later pull up to these horizons with all the mass. There were breakthroughs and setbacks. There were also dead ends. Entire peoples and countries disappeared.

But new peoples, new countries and states arose. The human life impulse did not dry up, but taking on new forms, it was filled with new energy. This is the real way of man's rise above his natural principle. The trend of progress makes its way through all the zigzags, breaks in history, through all the stupidities, mistakes, crimes of people. So it was, at least until now.

Thus, the essence of the civilizational approach to history is the disclosure of the essence of the historical process through the prism of the civilization of people within a particular community or all of humanity, in a particular period of time or throughout the history of people as a whole.