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)

Майя Лавринович, Ингрид Ширле
{"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。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信