On the Role of “Historical Phenomenology” in the Russian Historiography of the Late 20th — Early 21st Century

About the author:

Maksim N. Shevchenko, Cand. Sci. (Hist.), Senior Lecturer, Omsk Theological Seminary of the Omsk Diocese of the Russian Orthodox Church (Moscow Patriarchate); maxsh1978@yandex.ru; ORCID: 0000-0002-9752-8332

Abstract:

This article follows the discussion that developed in the Russian historiography around the postulates formulated by the founders of “historical phenomenology”. The author attempts to identify the most controversial topics of discussion and to form an idea of its role in the development of theoretical and methodological principles of the Russian medieval studies in the early 21^st century.

The study of the problem has required using historical-genetic and historical-comparative research methods. This article shows an extremely polarized attitude of the Russian researchers to the theoretical and methodological postulates of the “historical phenomenology”. The Russian historians have already addressed this problem, but their writings made no attempt to generalize the criticism or sum up the discussion. The new works, similarly to the previous ones, are written in the genre of criticism of the research program by A. L. Yurganov and A. V. Karavashkin and only multiply works of this nature.

The author believes that the time has come to define the results of the controversy, to highlight the key ideas criticized by researchers, and thus, to determine the most controversial topics of the theoretical and methodological legacy of the Russian medieval studies in the early 21^st century. Based on the intensity of critical comments, this paper identifies three of the most controversial positions of “historical phenomenology”. Special attention is paid to the problem of “explaining” and “understanding” the research methods, the idea of the “supra-historical” unity and the principle of “non-referentiality” in research analysis.

This paper concludes that during the discussion, the Russian researchers clarified their views on the essence of a number of terms and concepts. The polemics initiated by A. L. Yurganov and A. V. Karavashkin allowed drawing clearer lines of demarcation both in the theory and practice of humanities research.

References:

1. A. D. 2006. “Book review: Karavashkin A. V., Yurganov A. L. Doxa Region: source ыtudies of culture. Moscow: Russian state University for the Humanities, 2005. 210 pp.”. New Historical Bulletin, no. 1 (14). Accessed 22 June 2020. http://www.nivestnik.ru/­2006_1/24.shtml [In Russian]

2. Batkin L. M. 2001. “A few boring remarks in response to fascinating ‘children’s questions’”. In: Odysseus. Man in History, pp. 46-50. Moscow: Nauka. [In Russian]

3. Bessmertnyy Yu. L. 1991 “Annals: a turning point?”. In: Odyssey. Man in History, pp. 7-24. Moscow: Nauka. [In Russian]

4. Bulanin D. M. 2008. “The spirit of idleness (in connection with the release of the book by A. L. Yurganov ‘To Kill the Demon’)”. Russian Literature, no. 1, pp. 105-136. [In Russian]

5. Vlasov A. N. 2008. “About the book by A. L. Yurganov ‘To Kill the Demon: The Path from the Middle Ages to the New Time’”. Ancient Russia. Questions of Medieval Studies, no. 1 (31), pp. 109-115. [In Russian]

6. Volkov A. V. 2008. “Phenomenology: basic ideas and significance for historical science”. Bulletin of Leningrad State University named after A. S. Pushkin, no. 4 (17), pp. 77-84. [In Russian]

7. Demin A. S. (ed.). 1989. Hermeneutics of Ancient Russian Literature. Vol. 1: 11^th-16^th centuries. Moscow: Tipografia Ministerstva kultury USSR; USSR Academy of Sciences; Institute of World Literature named after A. M. Gorky. 481 pp. [In Russian]

8. Gurevich A. Ya. 1993. Historical Synthesis and the Annales School. Moscow: Indrik. 328 pp. [In Russian]

9. Russia XXI. 2003. “Discussion on the article by Andrey Yurganov ‘Source studies of culture in the context of the development of historical science’”. Russia XXI, no. 4. Accessed 20 June 2020. http://www.russia-21.ru/XXI/RUS_21/ARXIV/2003/­diskussia_04_2003.htm [In Russian]

10. Isaev D. P. 2013. “Source studies of culture, or the phenomenological method in modern Russian historiography”. CLIO, no. 12 (84), pp. 142-145. [In Russian]

11. Karavashkin A. V. 2000. Russian Medieval Journalism: Ivan Peresvetov, Ivan the Terrible, Andrei Kurbsky. Moscow: Prometey. 418 pp. [In Russian]

12. Karavashkin A. V. 2000. “Charisma of the tsar. The medieval concept of power as a subject of semiotic interpretation (review of the book: Uspensky B. A. 1998. Tsar and Patriarch: Charisma of Power in Russia (Moscow)”. Odyssey. Man in History, pp. 257-275. Moscow: Nauka. [In Russian]

13. Karavashkin A. V., Yurganov A. L. 2003. Experience of Historical Phenomenology: The Difficult Path to Evidence. Moscow: RGGU. 385 pp. [In Russian]

14. Karavashkin A. V., Yurganov A. L. 2005. The Region of the Doxa. Source Studies of Culture. Moscow: RGGU. 210 pp. [In Russian]

15. Krom M. M. 2004. “The ‘seeing myth’ or Paradoxes of ‘historical phenomenology’”. New Literary Review, no. 4 (68). Accessed 18 June 2020. https://magazines.gorky.media/nlo/2004/4/zryachij-mif-ili-paradoksy-istoricheskoj-fenomenologii.html [In Russian]

16. Krom M. M. 2000 “Hermeneutics, phenomenology and riddles of Russian medieval consciousness”. Russian History, no. 6, pp. 94-102. [In Russian]

17. Lappo-Danilevskiy A. S. 2010. Methodology of History: in 2 vols. Vol. 1. Edited by R. B. Kazakov, O. M. Medushevskaya and M. F. Rumyantseva. Moscow: Russian Political Encyclopedia (ROSSPEN). 408 pp. [In Russian]

18. Lukin P. V. 2001. “[Review] Yurganov A. L. 1998. Categories of Russian Medieval Culture. Moscow: Miros. 448 pp.”. Medieval Russia, no. 3, pp. 241-252. [In Russian]

19. Lyubutin K. N., Kondrashov P. N. 2010. Historical Phenomenology of Inhumanity. Yekaterinburg: Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 244, [1] pp. [In Russian]

20. Medushevskaya O. M. 1999. “Phenomenology of culture: the concept of A. S. Lappo‑Danilevsky in the Humanities of modern times”. Historical Notes, no. 2 (120), pp. 100-136. [In Russian]

21. Medushevskaya O. M., Rumyantseva M. F. 1997. History Methodology. Moscow: RGGU. 72 pp. [In Russian]

22. Ranchin A. 2008. “The ‘art’ of murder or theological liberty? (Review of the book: Yurganov A. L. 2006. To Kill the Demon: The Path from the Middle Ages to the New Time. Moscow)”. New Literary Review, no. 1 (89). Accessed 19 June 2020. https://magazines.gorky.media/nlo/2008/1/hudozhestvennoe-ubijstvo-ili-bogoslovskaya-­volnost.html [In Russian]

23. Rumyantseva M. F. 2009 “Phenomenological concept of source study in the interpretation of Olga Mikhailovna Medushevskaya.” RGGU Bulletin. Series “Historical Sciences. Historiography, Source Studies, Methods of Historical Research ”. no. 4, pp. 12-22. [In Russian]

24. Rumyantseva M. F. 2010 “Phenomenological concept of source study in the interpretation of Olga Mikhailovna Medushevskaya. Second article”. RGGU Bulletin. Series “Historical Sciences. Historiography, Source Studies, Methods of Historical Research”, no. 7 (50), pp. 11-26. [In Russian]

25. “Russian culture in comparative historical coverage”. 2001. In: Odysseus. Man in History, pp. 5-41. Moscow: Nauka. [In Russian]

26. Sukina L. B. 2011. Believer in the Russian Culture of the 16^th-17^th Centuries. Moscow: RGGU. 424 pp. [In Russian]

27. Yurganov A. L. 2001 “Experience of historical phenomenology”. Question of History, no. 9, pp. 36-52. [In Russian]

28. Yurganov A. L. 2010. “Historical phenomenology: ‘Not to explain, but to understand’”. Russia XXI, no. 1, pp. 176-187. Accessed 13 OCtober 2020. http://www.russia-21.ru/issues/2010-1/ [In Russian]

29. Yurganov A. L. 2003. “Source studies of culture in the context of the development of historical science”. Russia XXI, no. 3, pp. 56-99; no. 4, pp. 64-85. Accessed 15 June 2020. http://www.russia-21.ru/XXI/RUS_21/ARXIV/2003/yarganov_2003_03.htm, http://www.russia-21.ru/XXI/RUS_21/ARXIV/2003/yarganov_2003_04.htm [In Russian]

30. Yurganov A. L. 1998. Categories of Russian Medieval Culture Moscow: Miros. 448 pp. [In Russian]