从循环论到神论,或再论俄国历史的特殊性

IF 0.2 Q2 HISTORY
A. Dvornichenko
{"title":"从循环论到神论,或再论俄国历史的特殊性","authors":"A. Dvornichenko","doi":"10.21638/spbu02.2023.214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article was written as a response to the discussion in the previous issue. The concept of the author was regarded by B. N. Mironov as cyclic-pendulum, or inversion nature of Russia’s development. According to it, Russia, unlike the West, is characterized not by progressive, but by spasmodic pendulum development: progress is replaced by reaction, movement goes in a vicious circle. However, this concept is only a part of the whole theory of Dvornichenko, which states, in essence, that the state emerged in the Russian history late, only in 16th century, and in time acquired unique features of state-serfdom system. This system was from time to time disturbed by so called “Smutas” (crises). It is possible to regard these phenomena as cyclic, but it is necessary to take into account that the state after a period of crisis, on the one hand, revives, but on the other hand, there is a tendency towards collapse during such periods and a possibility of the state’s final dissolution. Some neglect of these phenomena in our history and the desire to study only so-called modernization leads historians to a biased picture of the Russian history, which glosses over the truth. This is evident in the works of B. N. Mironov and his adherents, particularly, in the articles published within the framework of this discussion. One could not overestimate a positive impact of authoritarian power in our history because it is a main cause of every “smuta”. In general, we shouldn’t exaggerate the achievements of the country because the price of every crisis period with the process of demodernization is dear. For the further understanding of the Russian history new and active discussions are necessary.","PeriodicalId":53995,"journal":{"name":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"From Cyclism to Theologism, or Again about the Peculiarities of Russian History\",\"authors\":\"A. Dvornichenko\",\"doi\":\"10.21638/spbu02.2023.214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article was written as a response to the discussion in the previous issue. The concept of the author was regarded by B. N. Mironov as cyclic-pendulum, or inversion nature of Russia’s development. According to it, Russia, unlike the West, is characterized not by progressive, but by spasmodic pendulum development: progress is replaced by reaction, movement goes in a vicious circle. However, this concept is only a part of the whole theory of Dvornichenko, which states, in essence, that the state emerged in the Russian history late, only in 16th century, and in time acquired unique features of state-serfdom system. This system was from time to time disturbed by so called “Smutas” (crises). It is possible to regard these phenomena as cyclic, but it is necessary to take into account that the state after a period of crisis, on the one hand, revives, but on the other hand, there is a tendency towards collapse during such periods and a possibility of the state’s final dissolution. Some neglect of these phenomena in our history and the desire to study only so-called modernization leads historians to a biased picture of the Russian history, which glosses over the truth. This is evident in the works of B. N. Mironov and his adherents, particularly, in the articles published within the framework of this discussion. One could not overestimate a positive impact of authoritarian power in our history because it is a main cause of every “smuta”. In general, we shouldn’t exaggerate the achievements of the country because the price of every crisis period with the process of demodernization is dear. For the further understanding of the Russian history new and active discussions are necessary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53995,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya\",\"volume\":\"7 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu02.2023.214\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo Universiteta-Istoriya","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu02.2023.214","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章是对上一期讨论的回应。作者的这一概念被米罗诺夫认为是俄罗斯发展的“钟摆”或“倒挂”性质。它认为,与西方不同,俄罗斯的特点不是进步,而是痉挛性的钟摆式发展:进步被反动所取代,运动陷入恶性循环。然而,这一概念只是德沃尼琴科整个理论的一部分。德沃尼琴科的理论本质上认为,国家在俄罗斯历史上出现较晚,仅在16世纪出现,并逐渐形成了国家农奴制的独特特征。这一体系不时受到所谓“Smutas”(危机)的干扰。我们可以把这些现象看作是循环的,但有必要考虑到,国家在经历一段危机时期后,一方面会复苏,但另一方面,在这段时期有崩溃的趋势,国家最终解体的可能性。对这些历史现象的忽视和对所谓现代化研究的一味追求,使历史学家对俄罗斯历史的认识出现了偏误,掩盖了真相。这在b·n·米罗诺夫及其追随者的作品中是显而易见的,特别是在本讨论框架内发表的文章中。专制权力在我国历史上的积极影响怎么估计都不为过,因为它是每一次“smuta”的主要原因。总的来说,我们不应该夸大国家的成就,因为在去现代化的过程中,每一个危机时期的代价都是高昂的。为了进一步了解俄罗斯历史,有必要进行新的、积极的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
From Cyclism to Theologism, or Again about the Peculiarities of Russian History
This article was written as a response to the discussion in the previous issue. The concept of the author was regarded by B. N. Mironov as cyclic-pendulum, or inversion nature of Russia’s development. According to it, Russia, unlike the West, is characterized not by progressive, but by spasmodic pendulum development: progress is replaced by reaction, movement goes in a vicious circle. However, this concept is only a part of the whole theory of Dvornichenko, which states, in essence, that the state emerged in the Russian history late, only in 16th century, and in time acquired unique features of state-serfdom system. This system was from time to time disturbed by so called “Smutas” (crises). It is possible to regard these phenomena as cyclic, but it is necessary to take into account that the state after a period of crisis, on the one hand, revives, but on the other hand, there is a tendency towards collapse during such periods and a possibility of the state’s final dissolution. Some neglect of these phenomena in our history and the desire to study only so-called modernization leads historians to a biased picture of the Russian history, which glosses over the truth. This is evident in the works of B. N. Mironov and his adherents, particularly, in the articles published within the framework of this discussion. One could not overestimate a positive impact of authoritarian power in our history because it is a main cause of every “smuta”. In general, we shouldn’t exaggerate the achievements of the country because the price of every crisis period with the process of demodernization is dear. For the further understanding of the Russian history new and active discussions are necessary.
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
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
×
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