{"title":"走向作为国家机构的社会概念史:纪念迪特里希-盖尔(1928-2023 年)","authors":"Майя Лавринович, Ингрид Ширле","doi":"10.21900/j.vivliofika.v11.1428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dietrich Geyer’s article “‘Gesellschaft’ als staatliche Veranstaltung. Sozialgeschichtliche Aspekte des russischen Behördenstaats im 18. Jahrhundert,” had a significant impact on both German and American historiography, which is not the case with the Soviet historiography of the 1960-1980s. Nevertheless, late Soviet and early post-Soviet historiography was preoccupied with the same problems of the relationship between “state” and “society” in Imperial Russia and sometimes followed the line of D. Geyer’s thinking. In the 1990s, when the “grand narrative” of modernization was called into question, historians engaged in a polemic about the very productiveness of the opposition of “state” and “society” as categories of historical knowledge. They turned to the local level of late imperial Russian society, or adopted new methods of examining legislative sources, avoiding access to “backwardness” or “underdevelopment,” preferring to examine the language and rhetoric of eighteenth-century documents.","PeriodicalId":269883,"journal":{"name":"ВИВЛIОθИКА: E-Journal of Eighteenth-Century Russian Studies","volume":"16 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"К истории концепта “Общество как государственное установление”: Памяти Дитриха Гайера (1928-2023)\",\"authors\":\"Майя Лавринович, Ингрид Ширле\",\"doi\":\"10.21900/j.vivliofika.v11.1428\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Dietrich Geyer’s article “‘Gesellschaft’ als staatliche Veranstaltung. Sozialgeschichtliche Aspekte des russischen Behördenstaats im 18. Jahrhundert,” had a significant impact on both German and American historiography, which is not the case with the Soviet historiography of the 1960-1980s. Nevertheless, late Soviet and early post-Soviet historiography was preoccupied with the same problems of the relationship between “state” and “society” in Imperial Russia and sometimes followed the line of D. Geyer’s thinking. In the 1990s, when the “grand narrative” of modernization was called into question, historians engaged in a polemic about the very productiveness of the opposition of “state” and “society” as categories of historical knowledge. They turned to the local level of late imperial Russian society, or adopted new methods of examining legislative sources, avoiding access to “backwardness” or “underdevelopment,” preferring to examine the language and rhetoric of eighteenth-century documents.\",\"PeriodicalId\":269883,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ВИВЛIОθИКА: E-Journal of Eighteenth-Century Russian Studies\",\"volume\":\"16 2\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ВИВЛIОθИКА: E-Journal of Eighteenth-Century Russian Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21900/j.vivliofika.v11.1428\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ВИВЛIОθИКА: E-Journal of Eighteenth-Century Russian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21900/j.vivliofika.v11.1428","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
Dietrich Geyer 的文章"'Gesellschaft' als staatliche Veranstaltung.Sozialgeschichtliche Aspekte des russischen Behördenstaats im 18.Jahrhundert" 对德国和美国的历史学都产生了重大影响,而 1960-1980 年代的苏联历史学则不然。尽管如此,苏联晚期和后苏联早期的史学界仍在关注帝俄时期 "国家 "与 "社会 "之间关系的相同问题,有时也会沿袭 D. Geyer 的思路。20 世纪 90 年代,当现代化的 "宏大叙事 "受到质疑时,历史学家就 "国家 "和 "社会 "作为历史知识范畴的对立是否有效展开了论战。他们转而研究晚期俄罗斯帝国社会的地方层面,或采用新的方法研究立法资料,避免接触 "落后 "或 "不发达",而倾向于研究十八世纪文件的语言和修辞。
К истории концепта “Общество как государственное установление”: Памяти Дитриха Гайера (1928-2023)
Dietrich Geyer’s article “‘Gesellschaft’ als staatliche Veranstaltung. Sozialgeschichtliche Aspekte des russischen Behördenstaats im 18. Jahrhundert,” had a significant impact on both German and American historiography, which is not the case with the Soviet historiography of the 1960-1980s. Nevertheless, late Soviet and early post-Soviet historiography was preoccupied with the same problems of the relationship between “state” and “society” in Imperial Russia and sometimes followed the line of D. Geyer’s thinking. In the 1990s, when the “grand narrative” of modernization was called into question, historians engaged in a polemic about the very productiveness of the opposition of “state” and “society” as categories of historical knowledge. They turned to the local level of late imperial Russian society, or adopted new methods of examining legislative sources, avoiding access to “backwardness” or “underdevelopment,” preferring to examine the language and rhetoric of eighteenth-century documents.