Issue 3 (76)
| REQUIEM FOR THE STATE — SOCIETY PARADIGM | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Year | 2022 | Number | 3(76) |
| Pages | 74-83 | Type | scientific article |
| UDC | 930.2 | BBK | 63.01 |
| Authors | Ingerflom Claudio S. |
Topic | METHODOLOGY OF THE “HISTORY OF CONCEPTS”: FROM THEORY TO PRACTICE |
| Summary | R. Koselleck laid down and developed the foundations of understanding history as a process in the plural. Begriffsgeschichte is not just a history of concepts. Conceptual history suggests research work, which is based on the theory of historical times and vice versa, the theory, constantly tested by specific historical research. From these positions, the author of this article emphasizes the irrelevance of the evolutionist and teleological paradigms used within the framework of the positivist approach to studying history. It is noted that already from the first third of the 19th century the study of the history of each country was carried out in the context of the “state — society” opposition. This led to the transformation of the concepts formed in the era of modernity into analytical categories for reading earlier sources and modern interpretation of the distant past. There are two reasons for the existence of such a view of history: 1) political — aimed at artificially creating a long genealogy of the state, which was used by dictatorial regimes that want to give themselves a strong historical legitimacy; 2) epistemological, which is the result of an incorrect identification of word and concept. This confusion is based on the assumption that words represent ideas which contain a permanent semantic core, that is, ideas can adapt to change, but the core does not change. This attitude, according to the author, leads to a cognitive impasse. A vivid illustration of this situation is the use of the phrases “feudal state” or “state of the Middle Ages”, in the time of which the very word state (estado, état) meant “dignity”, “status” and could have other connotations, but did not have the meaning it acquired when it became a concept meaning a legal and political order based on popular sovereignty, representation, equality and other phenomena born of the French Revolution. In Russia, the meaning of the concept of “state” changed at the end of the 18th century with the simultaneous coexistence of the previous patrimonialist semantics inherent in both the term “sovereign” and the actual functioning of the Russian Imperial system. This traditional semantics was also present in the 20th century both in the imperial family and among the people. Consequently, the historian must take into account both the repeatability of structures and the uniqueness of events. The author comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to identify the coexistence of different temporalities, the modernity of what is not modern, and to avoid division into diachrony and synchrony. It is this approach that best reflects the main heuristic value of Koselleck’s theory of historical times for concrete historical research. | ||
| Keywords | Koselleck, conceptual history, history of concepts, state, concept, historiography, teleology, anachronism | ||
| References |
Abadîa J. L. España y la Monarquía universal (en torno al concepto de “Estado moderno”). Quaderni Fiorentini per la storia del pensiero giuridico moderno. 1986, no. 15, pp. 109–166. (in Spanish). Braudel F. Écrits sur l’histoire. Paris: Flammarion, 1969. (in French). Chakrabarty D. Provincialiser l’Europe: La pensée postcoloniale et la différence historique. Paris: Éd. Amsterdam, 2009. (in French). Cherniavsky M. Tsar and People: Studies in Russian Myths. New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 1961. (in English). Clavero B. De un estado, el de Osuna, y un concepto, el de Estado. Anuario de Historia des derecho español, 1987, vol. 57, pp. 945–964. (in Spanish). Clavero B. Tantas personas como Estados. Por una antropología política de la historia europea. Madrid: Editorial Tecnos, 1986. (in Spanish). Conze W., Klippel D., Koselleck R. Staat und Souveränität. Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1990, Bd. 6, ss. 6–23. (in German). Duso G. Oltre il nesso sovranità-rappresentanza: un federalismo senza Stato? Ripensare la Costituzione. Milan: Polimetrica, 2008, pp. 183–201. (in Italian). Forest J.-D. Mésopotamie, l’apparition de l’État, VIIe–IIIe millénaire. Milan; Paris: Méediterranée, 1996. (in French). Foucault M. Dits et Écrits 1954–1988. Paris: Gallimard, 1994, tom 4: 1980–1988. (in French). Foucault M. Sécurité, territoire, population, Cours au Collège de France (1977–1978). Paris: Le Seuil, 2004. (in French). Hespanha A. Vísperas del Leviatán. Instituciones y poder político (Portugal, siglo XVII). Madrid: Taurus Humanidades, 1989. (in Spanish). Hintze O. Staat und Verfassung, gesammelte Abhandlungen zur allgemeinen Verfassungsgeschichte. Goettingen: Vanderhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962. (in German). Hoffmann S.-L., Franzel S. Introduction: Translating Koselleck. Sediments of Time. On possible Histories. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2018, pp. IX–XXXI. (in English). Huot J.-L. Vers l’apparition de l’État en Mésopotamie. Bilan des recherches récentes. Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, vol. 60, no. 5, 2005, pp. 953–973. (in French). Hwang K. M. Country or State? Reconceptualizing Kukka in the Korean Enlightenment period 1896–1910. Korean Studies, 2000, no. 24, pp. 1–24. (in English). Ingerflom C. S. Az yesm’ tsar’. Istoriya samozvanstva v Rossii [Az esm tsar. The history of imposture in Russia]. Moscow: NLO Publ., 2020. (in Russ.). Ingerflom C. S. [How to Comprehend the Changes without the Categories of Rupture and Continuity: a Hermeneutical Approach to the Revolution of 1917 in the Light of Conceptual History]. Filosofiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki [Philosophy. Journal of the Higher School of Economics], 2018, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 171–204. DOI: 10.17323/2587-8719-2018-II-3-171-204 (in Russ.). Koselleck R. Uber die Theoriebedurftigkeit der Geschichtswissenschaft. Zeitschichten. Studien zur Historik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2000, ss. 298–316. (in German). Koselleck R. Begriffsgeschichten. Studien zur Semantik und Pragmatik des politischen und sozialen Sprache. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2006. (in German). Koselleck R. Enleitung. Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1972, Bd. 1, ss. XIII–XXVII. (in German). Koselleck R. Staat und Souveränität. Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in Deutschland. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1990, Bd. 6, ss. 25–64. (in German). Koselleck R. Vergangene Zukfunt. Zur Semantik geschichtlicher Zeinten. Frankfut am Main: Suhrkamp, 1995. (in German). Koselleck R. Wiederholungsstrukturen in Sprache und Geschichte. Saeculum, 2006, vol. 57/1, ss. 1–16. (in German). Koselleck R. Zeitschichten. Zeitschichten. Studien zur Historik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp Verlag, 2000, ss. 19–26. (in German). Lewis B. [Government and State]. Belleten [By Memory], 1982, vol. 46, no. 182, pp. 415–421. (in Turkish). Lieven D. Nicholas II. Twilight of the Empire. New York: St. Martin’s Griffin, 1996. (in English). Presnyakov A. E. [Autocracy of Nicholas I]. Russkoye proshloye [Russian past]. Petrograd; Moscow: Petrograd Publ., 1923, iss. 2, pp. 3–21. (in Russ.). Schaub J.-F. Le Temps et l’Etat. Vers un nouveau régime historiographique de l’Ancien régime français. Quaderni Fiorentini, 1996, no. 25, pp. 127–172. (in French). Skalweit S. Der “moderne Staat”. Ein historischer Begriff und seine Problematik. Der “moderne Staat” Ein historischer Begriff und seine Problematik. Rheinisch-Westfälische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Opladen: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, 1975, Vorträge G 203, ss. 5–27. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-322-88169-4_1 (in German). Skinner Q. From the state of princes to the person of sate. Visions of Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002, vol. 2, pp. 368–413. (in English). Wook T. S. The concepts of State (Kuo-Chia) and People (Min) in the Late Ch’ing, 1890–1907: The case of Liang Ch’i-ch’ao, T’an Ssu-t’ung and Huang Tsun-hsien: Doctoral Diss. University of California, 1980. (in English). |
||
| Download in PDF | |||
