H. SCHLEIER. Theorieder Geschichte - Theorie der Geschichtswissenschaft; zu neueren theoretisch-methodologischen Arbeiten der Geschichtsschreibung in der BRD. Berlin. Akaderriie-Verlag. 1975. 118 S.

The latest bourgeois historiography of a number of countries includes dozens and hundreds of books and articles on the methodology of history. Written from positions that are profoundly alien to the materialist understanding of history, these works often aim to "refute" it and somehow contain its falsification. It is clear that for Marxist historians. A critical assessment of the latest theoretical concepts and views of bourgeois historians is important, and an explanation of their growing interest in the methodology of history is important.

In this respect, the work of G. Schleyer, a researcher at the Research Center in Leipzig, containing a condensed version of the article is of undoubted interest. a description of the latest concepts of German bourgeois historians in the field of historical methodology. Schleyer examines the role and place of "structural history", anthropology and psychoanalysis, the theory of modern society, historical time ; and a number of other problems and methods characteristic of the latest stage of development of bourgeois historiography in Germany. The diversity of points of view on a number of problems of the methodology of history in the West German bourgeois literature is explained not simply by the fact that these problems are controversial; -discussions are not aimed at developing a single solution, since the prevailing opinion is that diversity (of course, within the framework of an idealistic worldview) of theories is legitimate as a condition of scientific objectivity. Schleyer rightly believes that the growing interest of bourgeois historians in theory is due to both political and scientific motives. What matters first of all is the desire to actively oppose Marxist-Leninist historical science. At the same time, this is caused by the crisis of bourgeois historiography, its inability to fulfill its ideological, political, and ideological function in modern conditions with the help of old, traditional ideas about history, including history as a science (p.13).

In the latest bourgeois historiography of the Federal Republic of Germany, the postulate prevails, according to which theory is not an expression of the natural features of historical reality. Some bourgeois historians speak only of the laws of historical knowledge, but even these ideas do not meet with any significant support in bourgeois historiography. The inability, as well as the refusal, of West German bourgeois historians to develop a holistic view of the unity of world-historical development is obvious (pp. 27-31). From a cognitive-theoretical point of view, these views have the following basis: only what comes out of the pen of the historian is declared history (p.20). The Marxist-Leninist theory of reflection is contrasted with subjectivism, the thesis about the determining role of the historian's thinking in cognition, which supposedly creates the object of research; in this connection, the reality of the past is denied, and it is argued that historical facts are created by the historian.

Indeed, the historian, as a rule, does not deal with historical reality; the past appears to him in a form mediated by sources. The theory of knowledge of Marxist-Leninist historical science does not deny the active role of the historian's thinking in cognition. When studying sources, the historian's thinking plays an important role. But the activity of the historian can and should be directed not at creating a historical fact, but at ensuring that the scientific fact is as close as possible to the reality of the event in terms of its reliability, assessment of its importance in the chain of events, and so on. The bourgeois historians of the Federal Republic of Germany, on the other hand, remove the question of such a correspondence. Schleyer showed that the cognitive - theoretical foundations of German bourgeois historiography are very much characterized by the presence of an old ideological baggage - the "theory of understanding" (p.55) with its intuitionism, mysticism, and outright subjectivism.

1 See G. M. Ivanov. On the question of the concept of "fact" in historical science. Voprosy Istorii, 1959, No. 2.

page 191

An important place in the book is occupied by the study of the question of the attitude to the problem of historicism in the latest research of West German bourgeois historians .2 Material on historicism is available in all sections of the book, which indicates the importance of this problem for the bourgeois historiography of Germany. This problem is also essential for the Marxist-Leninist methodology of historical research, since without historicism there can be no scientific analysis of reality. The problem of historicism expresses in many ways the specifics of history as a science that studies the natural process of development of society in all the concrete originality of the manifestation of the laws of history and taking into account the peculiarities of their knowledge. German bourgeois historians also see historicism as a distinctive feature of history as a science, but they view it from an idealistic perspective. The book explores their twofold attitude to historicism: critical and apologetic. The author points out the desire of bourgeois historians of Germany to somehow reconsider the traditional attitude to historicism: they claim to reject the individualization of phenomena so characteristic of the representatives of German bourgeois historicism in the past, and to recognize that the historian cannot do without generalizations. The need for typology and generalizations is recognized by many West German authors.

How significant are these changes in the German bourgeois historiography? Schleyer rightly believes that there was no radical break with the traditions of idealistic historicism. This is evident from the role played, for example, by "structural history" in West German bourgeois historiography, and, in particular, from the fact that a historical person is often recognized as having a defining role in relation to social structure (p.71). In the aggregate of historical concepts of German bourgeois historians, the category "society" is applicable only to the period of modern times, which in itself narrows the possibilities of studying previous social structures. Despite calls to overcome the traditionally political approach to understanding the subject of historical science on the basis of a more intensive study of social history, this" overcoming " is now, as Schleyer notes, more a wish than a reality. But we should not lose sight of another thing: criticism of the" extremes " of historicism leads bourgeois historians of Germany to anti-historicism, sociologism, etc., which is not a scientifically fruitful overcoming of the real vices of bourgeois historicism.

Schleyer was one of the first historians of the GDR to consider in general terms the problem of historical concepts in the bourgeois historiography of Germany. For its representatives, the scientific and political significance of this problem increases every day. The dictionary "Basic Historical Concepts" has started to be published, and special works on this topic are being published. The history of concepts, writes R. Kozellek, for example, shows that "terms and their use are more important for politics than any other weapon." 3 The question of the nature of historical concepts is solved by bourgeois historians of Germany from the standpoint of idealism and subjectivism, as a result of which the objective content of concepts is somehow rejected. The book deals with one of the most important aspects of the problem - the logical analysis of language and the conclusions that bourgeois historians draw from it.

Unfortunately, one important feature of the views of the latest bourgeois historians of Germany is not reflected in the book. Some of them use certain Marxist propositions, in particular, they recognize the class character of the positions of a number of German bourgeois historians of the nineteenth century. However, in general, their methodology does not go beyond bourgeois historical thinking.

In general, the book confirms that the starting point of the methodological search of bourgeois historians of Germany is modernity, which includes the very state of historical science. The paper also addresses an important question about the role of the history of science in this search. Schleyer rightly notes that the history of science is becoming increasingly important in the formulation and solution of problems in the methodology of history by West German bourgeois historians. The fact that the theoretical and methodological foundations of the latest bourgeois historiography of Germany have a number of features in comparison with the bourgeois historiography of other countries is not an accident, but primarily the result of the previous development of German bourgeois historiography. West German IP systems-

2 See A. I. Patrushev. Traditions of "German historicism" in the bourgeois historiography of Germany. Voprosy Istorii, 1975, No. 10.

3 R. Koselleck. Der neuzeitliche Revolutionsbegriff als geschichtliche Kategorie. "Studium generale", 1969, N 8, S. 838.

page 192

Torics cannot dismiss the influence of their own traditions , as the controversy surrounding historicism once again shows. This fact confirms the truth that the development of the methodology of historical science is conditioned by the practice of concrete historical research: it is the history of historical science and its current state that provides the material for setting such problems and solving them. A peer-reviewed book is a useful and necessary study that encourages further in-depth study of the problems put forward in it.

page 193

Permanent link to this publication: