look at essays 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. As the stages of the historical development of mankind 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, they speak of ancient civilization, the civilization of the Incas, 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 the natural (including demographic) conditions of the life of society and ethnic, in general, specific historical features of the life and development of 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. 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 take into account even the slightest bit 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 public life and the relations of production that are formed on this basis, the economic 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 of the 20th century have been very intensively 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 with the outside world." Toynbee created the theory of the historical cycle of culture, presenting world history as a collection of individual 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 recurrence of social development, the driving force of 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 of social systems based on 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, it is impossible to understand the essence and specifics of modern Western society outside the civilizational approach, just as it is impossible to give a true assessment of the disintegration processes that have unfolded on a scale former USSR and 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, characteristics and development trends 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 this or that 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 a single 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, a comparative analysis of various, 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 occasion, 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 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 perhaps they will be able, without prejudice and allergies, 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 foreign analogues.
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, interpenetration and, finally, even rapprochement, which is very characteristic of the 20th century. But along with this, one cannot exclude rejection, and confrontation, and a merciless struggle, waged not only in cold, but also in hot forms, and much more.

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 ... was on the sidelines 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 fact, 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 acquired freedoms in everyday life for the benefit of ourselves 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 direction. 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 - in different peoples in different ways - 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 formational system following capitalism been clearly and definitely identified, although in developed countries the processes of socialization have clearly loomed.

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 mentioned 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 concrete 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 cardinal social upheaval, called the transition to civilization, was the technical revolution that gave life to cultural and sedentary agriculture, that is, the historically first type of productive economy. Such was the starting position of the agricultural civilization.
The essence of the transition to civilization consisted in the displacement of blood-kinship ties and relations (production, territorial, etc.) purely and strictly social, supra-biological, 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. Firstly, with all its further development, civilization consolidated the antagonism that arose in the depths of society, and secondly, a certain antagonistic contradiction developed between the integrating essence of civilization and the disintegrating form of its functioning within a whole series of socio-economic formations.

The emerging classes used the social institutions that had already taken shape in the process of the beginning transition to civilization to consolidate their dominance. 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". 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 work was assigned to the exploiters), with the process of urbanization (the differences between town and country 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 strata).

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 civilizational rather than 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 underlying 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 its classical form, commodity-planned and systematic-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 its controllability (planning).

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 twentieth century, a new scientific content of this term finally took shape and developed: 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 radical left 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 dominant historical scheme gave impetus to the search for other approaches, independent of the will of people of production, personal, subjective relations.

In this control work Let us 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. In accordance with the meaning of 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 direct 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 on different stages its development, includes a socio-political formation.

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

one). Primitive communal;

2). slaveholding;

3). feudal;

four). 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 at the present stage of development of society there is dissatisfaction with the formal understanding of the historical process, since economic relations determine all other relations in the formation (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 of the approaches I have considered - formational and civilizational - make it possible to consider the historical process from different angles of view, 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.

For a long time in Russian literature and science there was only one approach to the consideration and study of the past of mankind. According to him, the entire development of society is subject to a change in economic formations. This theory was put forward and clearly substantiated by Karl Marx. But today, more and more often, history is considered from the point of view of a wider range of development factors, combining together the formational and civilizational approaches to the history of origin and development

There are many explanations for this phenomenon, but the main one is that Marx's theory is one-sided and does not take into account many factors and historical information that cannot be ignored when studying such a multifaceted phenomenon as society.

Formational and are based in their studies on the following factors:

1. formational - based on economic development and property rights;
2. civilizational - takes into account all the elements of life, ranging from religious and ending with the ratio of "individual - power."

At the same time, it should be noted that, as such, a single concept in the civilizational approach has not been developed. Each researcher also takes into account only one or two factors. So, Toynbee identifies sixteen based on the development of society within a single territory from its inception to peak and decline. In contrast, Walt Rostow identifies only 5 civilizations, the basis of which is the ratio of "population - consumption", the highest of which is the state of mass consumption.

As can be seen from the latter theory, the formational and civilizational approaches quite often echo each other, which does not seem strange. This situation is due to the fact that they all characterize the history of society from only one point of view. Thus, both formational and civilizational approaches to the study of society cannot fully reveal its emergence and development at all stages, based solely on one method.

Thus, Marx's theory of formations and Toynbee's theory of civilizations seem to be the most complete of them. At the same time, most researchers have recently been more and more inclined to think that if we combine the key parameters of these concepts, then the formational and civilizational approaches can fully justify why the development of science, economics, culture and other spheres of public life has taken the path that traced through the pages of history.

The above is due to the fact that Marx's theory of 5 stages (formations) of people's development is based mainly on the type of economy and the development of tools. Toynbee's theory effectively complements it, revealing social, religious, cultural, scientific and other factors. It is worth noting that in the early stages Toynbee paid more attention to the religious component, which led to their opposition. Over time, the situation has changed, and today the formational and civilizational approaches to the study of society are only conditionally separated.

It should be noted that these methods of comprehending history have both disadvantages and advantages. Thus, the theory of formations has a detailed study of all aspects of the five stages of the economic history of any community. The disadvantage is the one-sidedness of understanding the processes occurring in states (namely, they are studied by Marx's theory), expressed in the fact that only the countries of Europe were identified as the subject for study. The experience of the Arab, American and African world was not taken into account. The “father” of the theory of civilizations, Toynbee, also built his judgments on the same factor.

Formational and civilizational approaches to the history of human development are currently opposed, which is fundamentally wrong. Such an attitude to the methods of studying the essence of the improvement of society leaves no opportunity to most accurately consider all the deep processes taking place in society. Therefore, in order to prevent the formation of white spots, formational and civilizational approaches should be used simultaneously.

The civilizational approach is the consideration of the historical process as the interaction of civilizations.

We list the characteristic features of the civilizational approach: it includes a certain set of principles that characterize the object of study (culture):

• 1) spatio-temporal integrity of the local socio-historical object;
• 2) the problem of identity that arises when interacting with the external environment;
• 3) the universal significance of the normative principles of the local civilizational structure for all its more or less large elements;
• 4) a way to determine the internal evolution (destiny).

However, these principles themselves are not unambiguously clarified in their systematic unity and specific functioning as applied to research. national history and civilization.

Civilization is a historical community of people, carriers of a single culture and value system that form the appearance of political institutions, economics, social relations, spiritual and cultural institutions that are characteristic only for this structure. cultural life. At the same time, the history of civilization in its scheme is similar to the vital cycle of biological organisms (birth - development - extinction - death).

There are disputes about which of the scientists first began to use the term "civilization" to refer to society. Approximately at the same time, in the middle of the 18th century, it was used by the French philosophers Victor Mirabeau and Paul Holbach. Initially, the term "civilization" arose as a designation of a certain level of development of society, according to the scheme: "savagery - barbarism - civilization". It is believed that in this sense it was substantiated and introduced into scientific circulation by the English philosopher Adam Ferguson (1723-1816) in his work "An Experience in the History of Civil Society" (1766).

In the second half of the XIX century. - the middle of the XX century. in the works of Joseph Arthur de Gobineau (1816-1882), Rickert (1823-1875), Danilevsky (1822-1885), Spengler and Toynbee (1889-1975), the theoretical foundations of the civilizational approach were developed as a special historical theory, representing the history of mankind as the history of interactions of local civilizations.

The essence of the civilizational approach is as follows. In the history of mankind, special human communities are distinguished, whose members were united by culture, value system and behavioral style, mentality, had political institutions that were different from others, features of economic development and social appearance. These are fairly large communities that could include several states and even entire continents. They are significant not only in terms of their scale, but also in terms of the strength of their impact on humanity, each of these communities is influential actor world history. It is important to emphasize that the differences between communities are very significant, fundamental, they are different socio-cultural organisms. Civilizations, as already mentioned, have a life cycle, go through all its stages from birth to death. All civilizations are finite, only some live longer, others shorter.

The civilizational approach is characterized by two lines of research. The first one focuses on identification of different civilizations. There is no scientific agreement here, there is no single scientifically accepted list of civilizations.

For example, Spengler singled out the following nine cultures: Egyptian, Babylonian, Indian, Chinese, Mexican, antique, Arabic, European, Russian. Toynbee named from 20 to 36 civilizations: western world, Orthodox Christian civilization of Byzantium and the Balkans, Orthodox Christian (Russian) civilization, Arab society (Islamic world), Far Eastern civilization in China, Far Eastern civilization in Japan and Korea, Hindu society, Iranian society, Hellenic society (Greco-Roman civilization), etc.

The second direction is characteristic singling out one or more local cultures and "combining" them into one civilization. Scientists study its ways of functioning, evolution, way of origin, interaction with the outside world and the causes of death.

FROM) cycles development of cultures and civilizations wrote Spengler. Based on the identification of these cycles, he tried to predict the future. According to him, "in this book, for the first time, an attempt is made to predetermine history." Culture is evolving and must develop into civilization. "Civilization is the inevitable fate of culture. Here the very peak is reached, from the height of which it becomes possible to solve the last and most difficult questions of historical morphology. Civilizations are the most extreme and most artificial states that a high type of people is capable of. They are the completion, they follow the formation as what has become, after life as death ... They are the end without the right to appeal. According to Spengler, the transition from culture to civilization in the West takes place in the 19th century. (The title of the book "The Decline of Europe", published in 1918, predicts the imminent death of Europe as a civilization).

As cycles, Spengler suggests the following. The first is the change of "simultaneous spiritual epochs" that were in different cultures: Indian, ancient, Arabic, Western (they manifested themselves in different ways, but the meaning was the same). The cycle of these epochs, according to Spengler, looks like this.

Spring. Landscape-intuitive element. Powerful creations of an awakening, dream-shrouded soul. Superpersonal unity and completeness.

• 1. The birth of the myth of the great style as an expression of a new sense of God. World fear and world anguish (for example, the religion of the Vedas, the Olympic myth in Ancient Greece, German Catholicism of the XII-XIII centuries, the legend of the Grail, etc.).
• 2. Early mystical and metaphysical design of a new world view. High scholasticism (for example, the Talmud, patristics, European medieval scholasticism).

Summer. Growing Consciousness. The first shoots of the civil-urban and critical movement.

• 3. Reformation within religion. Popular protest against the great reforms of the early era (eg Nestorians, Monophysites, Brahmins, Luther and Calvin).
• 4. the beginning of a purely philosophical formulation of the worldview. The opposition of idealistic and realistic systems (for example, Byzantine literature, Galileo, Leibniz, etc.).
• 5. Creation of new mathematics. The concept of number as a reflection of the essence of the form of the world (for example, the Pythagoreans, Descartes, Pascal, Newton).
• 6. Puritanism. Rationalistic-mystical impoverishment of the religious principle (for example, Muhammad, iconoclasts, English Puritans).

Autumn. Intelligentsia of big cities. The culmination of rigorous mental creativity.

• 7. "Enlightenment". Belief in the omnipotence of reason. The cult of "nature". "Rational Religion" (eg Buddha, Sophists, Sufism, English Sensualists and French Encyclopedists).
• 8. The culmination of mathematical thinking. Illumination of the world of number forms (for example, Plato, Laplace).
• 9. Great final systems (for example, idealism, theory of knowledge and logic: yoga, Aristotle, Avicenna, Schelling, Hegel, Fichte).

Winter. The beginning of cosmogonic civilization. The extinction of spiritual creative power. Life itself becomes problematic. Ethical and practical tendencies of non-religious and non-metaphysical cosmopolitanism.

• 10. Materialistic worldview. The cult of science, utility, happiness (for example, communist medieval sects, Darwin, Marx).
• 11. Ethical and social ideals of life: the era of "philosophy without mathematics". Skepticism (for example, the development of Buddhist currents, Hellenism, Epicurus, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, socialists).
• 12. Internal completion of the mathematical world of forms. Final Thoughts (eg Euclid, Archimedes, Gauss).
• 13. Decline of abstract thinking to professional scientific university philosophy. Compedium literature (e.g. Epicureans, Kantians).
• 14. Spread of the latest worldview (eg, Indian Buddhism, Hellenistic Stoicism, Islam's practical fatalism, ethical socialism since 1900).

Spengler also classified "simultaneous eras of art ", showing how culture turns into civilization. The scientist singled out Egyptian, ancient, Arabic, Western cultures and examined their development by era.

Deep antiquity. Chaos of primeval expressive forms. Mystical symbolism and naive imitation (for example, the Mycenaean era, the Merovingian-Carolingian era).

Culture. The history of the life of a style that forms all external being. The language of forms of the deepest symbolic necessity.

• 1. Early era. Ornament and architecture as an elementary expression of a young worldview ("primitives" - for example, Dorica, the early Arabic world of forms, Gothic):
  • - birth and rise, growing out of the spirit of the landscape, unconsciously created forms (for example, romance and early Gothic);
  • - the completion of the early language of forms, the exhaustion of possibilities and inconsistency (for example, the Doric-Etruscan style, mosaic painting and arabesques, late Gothic and Renaissance).
• 2. The late era, the formation of a group of urban-conscious, selected arts carried by individuals ("great masters"):
  • - development of mature artistry (for example, Ionic style, baroque);
  • - external completion of the spiritualized language of forms (for example, the acropolis, classical plastic, rococo, European classical music);
  • - the extinction of strict creative power. Decomposition of a large form. The end of the "classicism and romance" style (for example, the era of Alexander the Great; Harun al-Rashid, Beethoven, Delacroix).

Civilization. Existence without inner form. The art of world cities as a habit, luxury, sport, stress. Rapidly changing fashion styles (reanimations, arbitrary inventions, borrowings), devoid of symbolic content.

• 1. Art Nouveau. "Problems" of art. Attempts to personify and awaken the cosmopolitan consciousness. The transformation of music, architecture and painting into pure applied arts (for example, the Hyksos era, Hellenism, the art of the sultan dynasties of the 9th-10th centuries, impressionism and American architecture).
• 2. The end of the development of forms in general. Senseless, empty, tortured, heaped up architecture and ornamentation. Imitation of archaic and exotic motifs (for example, Roman culture, the Seljuk era, Europe since 2000).
• 3. Exodus. Development of a stationary treasury of forms. The luxury of the Caesars with material and massive impact. Provincial applied arts (for example, the art of the Roman provinces, Oriental applied arts, the Mongol era).

"Simultaneous political epochs " Spengler describes as follows (using the example of Egyptian, ancient, Chinese and Western cultures).

Deep antiquity. Type of primitive peoples. Tribes and leaders. There is no "politician" yet, just as there is no "state" (for example, the Mycenaean era, the era of the Franks of Charlemagne).

Culture. A group of peoples with an emphatically pronounced style and a common worldview - "nations". The influence of the immanent state idea.

• 1. Early era. Organic division of political life. Two different estates: the nobility and the clergy. Feudal economy of pure exchange values ​​of land (e.g. Doric, Gothic):
  • - feudalism. The spirit of the peasant country. The city is like a market or like a burg. Religious ideals. The struggle of vassals among themselves and against sovereigns (for example, Homeric Greece, the era of the German emperors and the Crusades);
  • - crisis and disintegration of patriarchal forms: from the feudal union to the estate state (for example, the Greek oligarchy, the Renaissance states).
• 2. Late era: the implementation of a mature state idea. City against the countryside: the emergence of the third estate (bourgeoisie). The victory of money over property (for example, the Ionic era, the Baroque era):
  • - the formation of a world of states of a strict form. Fronde (for example, the tyranny of Cleisthenes, the Fronde in France);
  • - the highest completion of the state form ("absolutism"). The unity of the city and the countryside ("state and society", "three estates") (for example, the Greek policy, politics of the Baroque and Rococo eras);
  • - the collapse of the state form (revolution and Napoleonism). The victory of the city over the countryside ("the people" over the privileged, the intelligentsia over tradition, money over politics) (for example, revolutions in America and France).

Civilization. The dissolution of the body of the people, now predisposed chiefly to life in big cities, in shapeless masses. World city and province: fourth estate (mass), inorganic, cosmopolitan beginning.

• 1. The domination of money ("democracy"). Economic forces penetrating political forms and power structures (for example, Hellenism, in Europe - 1880-2000, from Napoleon to world war and imperialism).
• 2. The rise of Caesarism. The victory of the politics of power over money. Increasingly primitive character of political forms. The internal disintegration of nations and their transformation into a formless population. The generalization of the latter into an empire, gradually reacquiring a primitive despotic character (for example, Rome from Sulla to Caesar and Tiberius, in Europe in 2000-2200).
• 3. The maturation of the final form: the private and family policy of individual sovereigns. The world is like prey. Egyptism, Mandarinism, Byzantinism. Ahistorical stiffness and impotence of the imperial mechanism against the backdrop of the predatory joy of young peoples or foreign conquerors. Slow accession of primitive states in highly civilized living conditions (for example, late Rome under Trajan and Aurelian, Europe after 2200).

Another historian and major theorist of this approach, an English historian and sociologist, author of the grandiose work "The Study of History" in 12 volumes by Toynbee (1889-1975), proposed to reveal the essence of the history of civilizations through the "challenge-response" scheme. The multi-volume work presents a huge panorama of history. He put forward the theory of local civilizations, having found several dozens of them in world history.

According to Toynbee, civilizations arise as a response to "challenges": natural and geographical (some kind of cataclysm), social (revolutions), foreign policy (conquest), etc. At the heart of any civilization is an elite, a "creative minority", whose complacency leads to breakdown of civilization. As a result, civilization is disorganized under the influence of two forces - the "internal proletariat" and the "external proletariat". The disintegration of civilization, however, leads to the formation of new unifying forces.

This theory explains the entire history of human culture. According to Toynbee, a cultural upsurge is the fate of all peoples, but the form in which this mission is carried out varies. In this regard, Toynbee makes a paradoxical conclusion: the course of the history of culture does not fit into any schemes, everything is possible at any time, but, on the other hand, without taking into account the civilizational panorama, any historical analysis is meaningless.

An undoubted advantage of the civilizational approach is the depiction of history as a process of development and interaction of cultures in the broadest sense of the word. We can appreciate the significance and direction of this process and thereby reveal the essence of history. The civilizational approach makes it possible to study history within the framework of long-term time structures, on a global scale, to draw broad historical canvases. The global approach, meanwhile, does not exclude the consideration of each cultural and historical community in its uniqueness and significance for world history.

The downside of the civilizational approach is that the level of generalizations is too high, at which details are smoothed and simplified, many specific facts are lost that contradict the scheme being built. The scheme acquires a subjective, tendentious character. It is not for nothing that we are talking about the civilizational approach in general, but at the same time, none of the specific civilizational theories has become generally accepted. Moreover, neither Spengler, nor Toynbee, nor other theorists of the approach, in fact, have successors who would take their theories and develop them, bring them to a new level. There are attempts to propose new civilizational theories, but each of them is just as subjective and authorial as the previous ones. Only the very principle of the possibility of distinguishing individual civilizations in the history of mankind has received general recognition. Their composition and characteristics remain the subject of debate.

Speaking about the civilizational approach, we have in mind the general principle of considering the history of mankind as a set of local civilizations in the dynamics of their development.

• On the problematic nature of modern research and the use of the principles of the civilizational approach, see the detailed monograph: Morozov II. M. Conceptualization of historical knowledge about Russian civilization at the turn of the 20th-21st centuries. Kemerovo: Praktika Publishing House. 2014. Most often, as noted by N. M. Morozov, researchers use fully or selectively the principles formulated by the sociologist Pitirim Sorokin on the basis of an analysis of the works of N. Ya. Danilevsky, Spengler, Toynbee, José Ortega y Gasset (p. 401) . The concretization of these principles, ensuring their systematic unity still remain an open task for the methodology. scientific research.
• Spengler O. Sunset of Europe. S. 128; 163-164.
• Spengler O. Sunset of Europe. T. 1. S. 189-192.
• There. T. 1.S. 193-196.
• Spengler O. Sunset of Europe. pp. 197-200.
• Toynbee L.A Study of History. Vol. I: Introduction; The Geneses of Civilizations. London: Oxford University Press, 1934; Vol. II: The Geneses of Civilizations. London: Oxford University Press, 1934; Vol. Ill: The Growths of Civilizations. London: Oxford University Press, 1934; Vol. IV: The Breakdowns of Civilizations. London: Oxford University Press, 1939; Vol. V: The Disintegrations of Civilizations. London: Oxford University Press, 1939: OVol. VI: The Disintegrations of Civilizations. London: Oxford University Press, 1939; Vol. VII: Universal States; Universal Churches. London: Oxford University Press. 1954; Vol. VIII: Heroic Ages; Contacts between Civilizations in Space. London: Oxford University Press. 1954; Vol. IX: Contacts between Civilizations in Time; Law and Freedom in History; The Prospects of the Western Civilization. London: Oxford University Press, 1954; Vol. X: The Inspirations of Historians; A Note on Chronology. London: Oxford University Press, 1954; Vol. XI: Historical Atlas and Gazetteer. London: Oxford University Press. 1959; Vol. XII: Reconsiderations. London: Oxford University Press. 1961.

FEDERAL STATE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

HIGHER PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION

« KALININGRAD STATE TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY»

Abstract on the discipline ""

Topic: "Formational and civilizational approaches to history"

1. Formations or civilizations? ................................................. .................................

2. On the formational approach to history.................................................. ……………………….

3. On the essence of the civilizational approach to history.................................................... ......

4. On the correlation of formational and civilizational approaches to history ………..

5. About possible ways of modernization of the formational approach ………………………………

Formations or civilizations?

The experience accumulated by mankind in the spiritual assimilation of history, with all the difference in worldview and methodological positions, reveals some common features.

First, history is viewed as a process that unfolds in real space and time. It happens for certain reasons. These causes, wherever they are found (on earth or in heaven), are factors that determine the movement of history and its direction.

Secondly, already at the early stages of understanding the paths and destinies of various countries and peoples, civilizations and specific national societies, problems arise related to one or another understanding of the unity of the historical process, the uniqueness and originality of each people, each civilization. For some thinkers, the history of mankind has an internal unity, for others it is problematic.

Thirdly, in many teachings, history has an explicit or hidden teleological (goal-setting) character. In religion, this is chiliastic eschatology (the doctrine of the end of earthly history), in materialistic philosophy - a kind of automatism of the laws of social development, with the immutability of fate leading humanity to a brighter future or, on the contrary, to a world cataclysm.

Fourthly, the desire to penetrate into the nature of the movement of history. Here, too, a kind of dichotomy arose - linear or cyclic movement.

Fifth, history is comprehended as a process that has its own stages (stages, etc.) of development. Some thinkers start from the analogy with a living organism (childhood, adolescence, etc.), others take as a basis for distinguishing the stages of the features of the development of any elements or aspects of people's existence (religion, culture, or, conversely, tools, property, etc.). P.).

Finally, history has always been comprehended under the strong influence of sociocultural factors. The national-state, social-class and cultural-civilizational orientation of thinkers usually played a paramount role. As a rule, the universal beginning appeared in a specific (national, etc.) form. The personal characteristics of thinkers cannot be discounted. In general, two methodological approaches have been identified today. One is monistic, the other is civilizational or pluralistic. Within the framework of the first, two concepts are distinguished - Marxist and the theory of post-industrial society. The Marxist concept is associated with the recognition of the mode of production as the main determinant of social development and the allocation on this basis of certain stages or formations (hence its other name - formational); the concept of a post-industrial society puts forward the technical factor as the main determinant and distinguishes three types of societies in history: traditional, industrial, post-industrial (information and eoch.) society.

On the basis of the civilizational approach, many concepts are distinguished, built on different grounds, which is why it is called pluralistic. The root idea of ​​the first approach is the unity of human history and its progress in the form of staged development. The root idea of ​​the second is the denial of the unity of the history of mankind and its progressive development. According to the logic of this approach, there are many historical formations(civilizations), weakly or not at all connected with each other. All these formations are equal. The history of each of them is unique, as unique as they are.

But it is not out of place to give a more detailed scheme of the main approaches: religious (theological), natural science (in Marxist literature it is often called naturalistic), cultural-historical, socio-economic (formational), technical-technological (technical, technical- deterministic). In the religious picture of the historical process, the idea of ​​the creation of the world by God is taken as the starting point. Within the framework of the natural-scientific approach, any natural factor (geographical environment, population, biosphere, etc.) acts as the starting point for the study of human history. The cultural-historical approach most often appears in the form of a civilizational approach in the narrow sense of the word. Here, culture comes to the fore (in general or in some specific forms).

The listed approaches to history differ significantly in their place and role in social cognition, in their influence on social practice. The highest claim to the revolutionary change of the world shows the Marxist doctrine (formational approach). This predetermined broad opposition to it from other approaches and resulted in a kind of dichotomy - Marxist monism or Western pluralism in the understanding of history. Today, this dichotomy among Russian scientists (philosophers, historians, etc.) has acquired the form of a formation or civilization and, accordingly, a formational or civilizational approach.

About the formational approach to history

Marx's doctrine of society in its historical development is called the "materialistic understanding of history." The main concepts of this doctrine are social being and social consciousness, the method of material production, the basis and superstructure, the socio-economic formation, the social revolution. Society is an integral system, all elements of which are interconnected and are in a strict hierarchy. The basis of social life or the foundation of society is the mode of production of material life. It determines "the social, political and spiritual processes of life in general. It is not the consciousness of people that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being determines their consciousness"2. In the structure of the mode of production, the productive forces and, above all, the instruments of labor (technology) are of primary importance. Their influence on other spheres of public life (politics, law, morality, etc.) is mediated by production relations, the totality of which constitutes "the economic structure of society, the real basis on which the legal and political superstructure rises and to which certain forms of social consciousness correspond"3 . In turn, the superstructure (politics, law, etc.) has a reverse active influence on the basis. The contradictions between the productive forces and production relations are the main source of development, sooner or later they cause special conditions in the life of society, which take the form of a social revolution. The history of mankind is natural, i.e. the process of changing socio-economic formations, independent of people's consciousness. It moves from simple, lower forms to more and more developed, complex, meaningful forms. “In general terms, the Asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern, bourgeois, modes of production can be designated as progressive epochs of economic formation. Bourgeois production relations are the last antagonistic form of the social production process. Therefore, the prehistory of human society ends with the bourgeois social formation”1.

Particular attention should be paid to the concept of formation. For Marx, it denotes a logically generalized type (form) of the organization of the socio-economic life of society and is formed on the basis of the identification of common features and characteristics in various concrete historical societies, primarily in the mode of production. In other words, it is a historically defined type of society, representing a special stage in its development ("... a society that is at a certain stage of historical development, a society with a peculiar distinctive character"2. Thus, capitalism is a machine industry, private ownership of the means production, commodity production, market.A formation, therefore, cannot be understood as some kind of empirical society (English, French, etc.) or some kind of aggregate geopolitical community (West, East).Formation in this sense is highly idealized, abstract-logical At the same time, a formation is also a reality that acts as a common feature in the socio-economic organization of the life of various specific societies. modern society there is, in Marx's view, "a capitalist society that exists in all civilized countries, more or less free from the admixture of the Middle Ages, more or less modified by the peculiarities of the historical development of each country, more or less developed"3.

Marx, in general, remained within the framework of the global ideas of his time about history (as they develop, for example, in the philosophy of Hegel: world history characterized by direct unity, general laws operate in it, it has a certain direction of development, etc.). It is clear that he rethought these ideas on a different methodological (materialistic in this case) basis, but in general, we repeat, he was and remained the son of his century. And, of course, he could not resist the temptation of global foresight: the communist formation will follow the capitalist formation (socialism is only its initial stage). Communism is thus the highest goal of history, the golden age of mankind. It makes sense to distinguish between Marxism as a scientific theory addressed to the scientific community (community of scientists, specialists) and Marxism as an ideological doctrine designed for the masses, to win their minds and hearts; a doctrine in which, unlike theory, faith occupies a large proportion. In the first case, Marx acts as a scientist, in the second as a passionate ideologue, a preacher.