Chapter 1. Principles and methods of historical analysis

In the 20th century, the relativity of any knowledge of the past became quite obvious. Researchers, who philosophically tried to understand the historical process and the nature of historical knowledge, came to the conclusion that history can not be reflected objectively. This was explained by the fact that the conditions in which the events of the past unfolded no longer exist, those subjects who acted in the past also do not exist. In any case, history is always some kind of reconstruction, restoration of the past, which clearly loses the features that were characteristic of this past. This view of historiographical activity, that is, the reconstruction of the past, was established in the 20th century. Today, there are also postmodern scientists who believe that the past does not exist in an objective sense, and our knowledge of the past is only reproduced in the process of our communication. Then this means that history is not concerned with reconstruction, but with the construction of the past. Of course, this is quite a radical view, which not many historians are willing to agree with. The most influential critics of positivism were prominent 20th-century thinkers Benedetto Croce and Robin George Collingwood.

They argued that history cannot be reflected objectively, since the events and conditions of the past no longer exist, and only the reconstruction of historical reality based on sources is possible (Fig. 1.1, Fig. 1.2).

In the 20th century, history also acquired a new dimension due to the reformulation of the tasks of historical research. The most famous historical school in the world at that time was the «annals» school, one of the representatives of which was Lucien Febvre, a historian who advocated an interdisciplinary approach to history (Fig. 1.3). He wanted historians to do everything, that is, together with psychologists, to study the history of feelings, together with geographers, the history of the interaction of man and nature.

Fig. 1.1. Benedetto Croce (1866–1952) — Italian historian and philosopher

Fig. 1.2. Robin George Collingwood (1888–1943) — British historian and philosopher

Fig. 1.3. Lucien Febvre (1878–1956) — French historian

Thanks to this school, the view on the goals of historical science was reformulated. Today, historians treat this differently, and not all follow the principles described by them, but by far the greatest success of historians in the 20th century is associated with this reformulation and redefinition of approaches. In particular, the school of «annals» proposed to radically break the tradition of writing history as a narrative about the past, as was typical of medieval chroniclers. They also suggested describing history not linearly, from the past to the present, but to set some new tasks in our understanding of the past and solve the questions that arise.

Representatives of the described historical school published works in the journal «Annals of social and economic history», which existed since 1929 (Fig. 1.5).

The views of the annals school also went against the traditions of the positivists, as they raised the concept of «historical fact» to dogma. Lucien Febvre and his colleagues asked questions: «was there such a historical fact in fact», «is it enough that it is contained in written sources», «is it possible to study history more productively if you turn to other sources, not only written?». The cult of written sources, which is characteristic of positivists, has given way to the cult of the diversity of sources. The historian is like a cannibal: «There where he smells human flesh, he knows that there is his prey», said Mark Block, the founder of the magazine (Fig. 1.4).

Fig. 1.4. Marc Bloch (1886–1944) — French historian

All this also means that historians need to seek help from methods and specialists from different disciplines, of course, from the Humanities and Social Sciences, in order to better understand the past, be able to set goals and tasks for learning about the past and be able to solve problems that arise along the way. Therefore, the annals school began to promote a turn to interdisciplinarity, and actively involve methods of other Sciences.

In the center of the research of historians should be a person. But the concept of a person, in this case, is understood much more broadly than it was interpreted before. First, the history of a person is not only the lives of great people. The everyday experience of the common man is also worth studying. Outstanding people are no more important than people who don’t seem outstanding to us. A person is not only his way of life in the sense of any achievements, it is at the same time a person’s worldview, views on life, on himself, on others, on history itself. This is everyday life in all its manifestations. This is an anthropological approach to history. Its effectiveness is connected not only with the achievements of the annals school, its effectiveness is associated not only with the achievements of the annalistic school but is also one of the dominants in historical work for it.

The story of narration, storytelling is also replaced by asking questions and studying the problems of history. How people thought, why they thought this way and not otherwise, what were the limits of what was possible in order to describe the reality around them — all these questions came to the fore.

The described school began to descend from the historical scene in the 80s, although the magazine still exists. In many ways, this is due to the process of globalization, as in this process, the Anglo-Saxon tradition of scientific knowledge is brought to the fore. However, the school made a very important revolution in historical knowledge, because it redefined the task of historians, and today many scientists largely follow the school of «annals» in setting problems and solving these problems — and we are no exception.

In this regard, it is very symbolic that the periodical of the European anti-rheumatic League is called «Annals of rheumatic diseases» (Fig. 1.5).

Fig. 1.5. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales (1929) (a); Periodical of the European anti-rheumatic League (b)

Concluding the introductory part, we note that periodization is important in historiography (Fig. 1.6). At the same time, periodization takes into account certain characteristics, such as the socio-political structure, the level of technological structure, and the principles of communication. However, there is still no universal periodization mechanism for all times and peoples. The division of historical epochs into antiquity, the middle ages, the Renaissance, and so on, which has been well known to us since high school, is to a certain extent Eurocentric and also not without drawbacks.