Sociocultural approach in modern historical process

UDC 303::93/94

https://doi.org/10.20339/AM.05-20.027        

E.A. Tokareva is Cand.Sci. (History), prof. at Moscow City Pedagogical University e-mail: tokareva.7458@gmail.com  

Presented is the analysis of methodological foundations of sociocultural approach in historical knowledge. Theoretical and methodological potential of sociocultural approach as an alternative to the paradigm of historical monism is revealed. The idea is substantiated, that orientation on sociocultural factors by constructing methodology of historical knowledge makes it possible to realize substantial diversity of historical reality. At the same time, sociocultural approach is integrative. Models of historical development are analyzed. It is shown, that categories of historical science as a whole coincide with categories of culture. Based on the analysis of sources, it is proved, that application of sociocultural approach to historical process significantly expands methodological and research paradigms. By using sociocultural approach in historical descriptions, a number of significant substantial reorientations are observed, namely: moving away from the “elitist” towards the “marginal”, shifting research attention to

historiographic phenomena of regionalism and localism, emergence of new areas of historical localism and, accordingly, new “problem fields”, i.e. historical regionalism, local history, everyday history, microhistory, mental geography. Emergence of the concept of mesoscale is substantiated, that can act as an important link in the system between macro- and microapproaches, which offers a key to explaining variability and increased dynamism of societies. Shifting the focus of methodology of historical knowledge to sociocultural factors makes it possible to realize the substantial diversity of historical reality, treat history as a story about the “mosaic” of different cultures, each of which expresses a unique way of life of certain people.

Key words: cultural studies of history, historiography, national identity.

References

1. Aksenov, A.I., Rogozhin, N., Pikhoya, R., Naumov, S., Soboleva, N., Malysheva, O., Timofeev, P. Russian statehood: ideas, people, symbols. Moscow, 2008.

2. Astafyeva, O.N. Transnationalization of the cultural space: the state and the problems of coordination of the communication strategies. Observatory of culture, 2006. No. 4. P. 4–10.

3. Boymatov, U.F. Problematization and conceptualization of glocalization as a social process of the world society formation. Vestnik VGU. 2017. No. 3. P. 102–198.

4. Borshtchik, N.D. The role of historical local history in the study of the history of the Russian Federation. Scientific Bulletin of the Crimea. 2017. No. 1 (6). P. 1–6.

5. Bubnova, I.A., Kazachenko, O.V., Tokareva, E.A. Declaration of Values in Orders and Medals: Historical Aspects. Sociological Studies. 2019. No. 11. P. 131–139.

6. Burkovsky, I.V., Gorokhov, D.Yu., Dorokhov, N.I. and others. Background of history of Russian state: Origins, Processes, Problems. Moscow, 2014.

7. Vampilova, L.B., Manakov, A.G. Experience in historical and geographical zoning of the North-West of European Russia. Geography and natural resources, 2015. No. 1. P. 167–174.

8. Voropayeva, T.S. Post-colonial studies in Russia: Problems & Prospects. Scientific Look into the future. 2017. No. 3 (05-03). P. 74–79.

9. Gomayunov, S.A. Local history: methodological problems. History issues. 1996. No. 9. P. 160–162.

10. Gross, M. Main tendencies of development of Western historiography in the last quarter of 20th — beginning of 21st centuries. Social sciences and modernity. 2011. No. 4. P. 105.

11. Erusalimsky, K.Yu. Review of the book “History of Russia in the 16^th and 17th centuries from point of view of its regions”. National history. 2006. No. 2. P. 149–150.

12. Zamyatin, D.N. Humanitarian geography: space, imagination and interaction of modern humanities. Sociological review. 2010. No. 9 (3). P. 26–27.

13. Karpov, S.I. Historical science at the present stage: state and prospects of development. New and modern history. 2009. No. 5. P. 24.

14. Kassin, B. European Dictionary of Philosophy. In: Lexicon of Non-Translations. Kiev, 2015.

15. Lapin, N.I. Sociocultural approach and socio-functional structures. Sociological research. 2000. No. 7. P. 3–12.

16. Lobanova, M.M., Kotylev, A.Yu. Sociocultural Space of Post-Soviet Russia. In: Pitirim Sorokin and paradigms of global development of the 21st century. Syktyvkar, 2019. P. 238–244.

17. Malysheva, O.G. Parliament of Russian Empire: trial by war. In: World War I — Prologue of the 20th century. Moscow, 2014. P. 179–184.

18. Malysheva, O.G. Manifesto projects October 17, 1905. “On improvement of the state order”. In: Text, context, inter-text. Moscow, 2016. P. 226–232.

19. Malysheva, O.G., Tokareva, E.A. Which one of us now does not know our troubles? In: A.I. Solzhenitsyn: Russian and national literature. Moscow, 2018. P. 321–337.

20. Mileshina, N.A., Merkushin, A.V. History of everyday life as a scientific direction. Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art criticism. Questions of theory and practice. 2015. No. 11 (3). P. 103–105.

21. Mogilnitsky, B.G. Macro- and microapproaches in historical research (historiographical perspective). Vestnik of Tomsk State University. 2009. No. 2 (6). P. 14–21.

22. Nabokina, M.E., Smirnova, Yu.V., Tokareva, E.A. Russian religious and philosophical intelligentsia as a socio-cultural phenomenon of the beginning of the 20^th century. In: Actual directions of fundamental and applied research. Moscow, 2016. P. 15–28.

23. Nabokina, M.E.; Smirnova, Yu.V. St.-Petersburg religious-philosophical society in search of a way out of the revolutionary crisis: on the basis of transcripts of the sessions. In: Great Russian Revolution: society, man, culture, everyday life. Moscow, 2017. P. 123–130.

24. Pikhoya, R.G., Chernobaev, A.A. History and Philosophy of Russian Historical Science. Moscow, 2006.

25. Popkov, Yu.V., Tyugashev, Yu.A. Sociocultural movement in the humanitarian community and the sociocultural approach. Bulletin NGU. 2012. No. 10 (3). P. 58–63.

26. Repina, L.P. “Historical Revolution” and theoretical research at the turn of the century. History. 2013. No. 2 (18).

27. Rudakova, I.V. Sociocultural Approach as Methodological Principle. Historical, Philosophical, Political and Legal Sciences, Cultural Studies and Art History. Questions of theory and practice. 2017. No. 11. P. 159–162.

28. Salimgareyev, D.V. Paradigm of the sociocultural approach: some features of conceptual understanding. Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art criticism, 2016. No. 3 (1). P. 153–155.

29. Simonyan, R.Kh. The concept of the meso-level as applied to the region. Sotsis. 2010. No. 5. P. 52–61.

30. Smirnova, Yu.V., Tokareva, E.A. Expectations, values and mental “gaps” in the political culture of Russian liberal intelligentsia at the beginning of the 20th century. Bulletin of Moscow City Pedagogical University. 2017. No. 2 (26). P. 18–27.

31. Sorokin, P.A. Person. Civilization. Society. Moscow, 1992.

32. Tokareva, E.A. Cultural project, cultural practice and discourse on culture and revolution in Soviet Russia in 1920–30s: to the statement of the problem. In: Text, context, inter-text. Moscow, 2016. P. 157–164.

33. Fieyskaya, M.G., Chernysheva, O.N., Malysheva, O.G. Russian State Symbolism in Questions and Answers. Kostroma, 2009.

34. Smirnova, Yu.V., Nabokina, M.E. Evolution of social thinking of Soviet researchers and ideological politics. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences. 2019. P. 1399–1405.