look at abstracts similar to "Civilizational Approach to History"

Introduction 2
Civilization. The essence of the civilizational approach 3
Features of Russian civilization 10
Multidimensional vision of history 13
Conclusion 18
Bibliography 20

Introduction

Running a little ahead, we note that the leitmotif of many speeches today is the desire to replace the formational approach to large-scale division historical process to the civilizational one. In the clearest form, this position is stated by all supporters as follows: to transform the concept of civilization, which historiography has so far operated only as a descriptive tool, into the leading (highest) paradigm of historical knowledge.

So what is civilization?

The very term "civilization" (from Latin civilis - civil, state) still has no unambiguous interpretation. In world historical and philosophical (including futurological) literature, it is used in four senses:

1. As a synonym for culture - for example, among A. Toynbee and other representatives of the Anglo-Saxon schools in historiography and philosophy.

2. As a certain stage in the development of local cultures, namely the stage of their degradation and decline. Let us recall the sensational book of O.
Spengler's "The Decline of Europe".

3. How steps historical development of humanity, following barbarism. We meet this understanding of civilization in L. Morgan, after him in F. Engels, today in A. Toffler (USA).

4. As a level (stage) of development of a region or a separate ethnic group. In this sense, they speak of ancient civilization, the civilization of the Incas, etc.

We see that these understandings in some cases largely overlap and complement each other, in others they are mutually exclusive.

In order to define the concept of civilization, it is obviously necessary to first analyze its most essential features.

Civilization. The essence of the civilizational approach

Below we will analyze the main features of civilization

First, civilization is the proper social organization of society. This means that the transitional era, the leap from the animal kingdom to society is over; the organization of society according to the blood-related principle was replaced by its organization according to the neighboring-territorial, macro-ethnic principle; biological laws have faded into the background, submitting in their action to sociological laws.

Secondly, civilization from the very beginning is characterized by a progressive social division of labor and the development of information and transport infrastructure. Of course, we are not talking about the infrastructure inherent in the modern wave of civilization, but by the end of the barbarism, the leap from tribal isolation had already been completed. This allows us to characterize civilization as a social organization with a universal connection between individuals and primary communities.

Thirdly, the goal of civilization is the reproduction and augmentation of social wealth. As a matter of fact, civilization itself was born on the basis of the surplus product that appeared (as a result of the Neolithic technical revolution and a sharp increase in labor productivity). Without the latter, the separation of mental labor from physical labor, the emergence of science and philosophy, professional art, etc. free time necessary for the individual and society as a whole for their all-round development. Social wealth also includes the culture of social relations.

Summarizing the selected features, we can agree with the definition according to which civilization is the actual social organization of society, characterized by a universal connection of individuals and primary communities in order to reproduce and increase social wealth.

A few words about the foundations (bases) of formations and civilizations, about the watershed between them. This question is still debatable, but, obviously, we must proceed from the fact that in both cases the basis is undoubtedly a material formation, although they belong to different spheres of social life: in the foundation of civilization as a whole and in each from its stages lies the technical and technological basis, in connection with which it is reasonable to speak of three stages (waves) in the development of civilization - agricultural, industrial and information-computer. At the heart of the formation is the economic basis, that is, the totality of production relations.

How, for example, can we explain why, given the same, in principle, technical and technological basis, we find seriously different variants of historical development?

Why, say, in most regions of the world the emergence of the state was a consequence of the process of class formation, which had already gone far, and in some it was noticeably ahead of this process? Obviously, other things being equal, and above all with the same technical and technological basis, there is some additional factor that determines the specifics of the phenomenon under consideration. In this case, natural and climatic conditions, which predetermine the need for centralized efforts for the construction and operation of large irrigation systems, acted as a differentiating factor. Here, the state initially acted primarily in its economic and organizational hypostasis, while in other regions everything began with the function of class suppression.

Or - why do the historical paths of different socio-ethnic communities differ from each other? It would be rash to discount the ethnic characteristics of peoples. In particular, with all the general rejection of the concept of ethnogenesis and understanding of the essence of an ethnos, L.N. Gumilyov cannot fail to notice the rational kernel contained in his judgments about passionarity as a measure of energy filling, activity and resistance of an ethnos to external influences. accounts and historical features of the development of the studied society. This remark is also true when solving the problems of our time, predicting the success or failure of the reforms being undertaken. So, our optimism about the fate of the current political and economic reforms is significantly reduced in our country, as soon as we begin to take into account our own historical heritage in the slightest degree. After all, the main thing, obviously, is not what inheritance we can give up in the course of reforms, the main thing is what we cannot give up. And in our heritage - and centuries-old layers of the patriarchal-communist, communal mentality with its both negative and positive aspects; and the massive conformism that has entered flesh and blood in the past few decades; and no less massive disobedience; lack of any significant democratic traditions and much more.

All three considered components of the foundation are reflected by social psychology, and this reflection turns out to be a necessary link between the foundation of social life and the relations of production, the economic basis, which are formed on this basis. Thus, the incompleteness of the traditional formation scheme is revealed not only in the elimination of such important “bricks” as natural (including demographic) conditions and ethnic (generally historical) characteristics from the foundation, but also in ignoring the socio-psychological component of social development: the basis and the superstructure are linked directly.

Numerous philosophical schools of the twentieth century have been and are engaged in the study of the phenomenon of civilization very intensively. Strictly speaking, it was at this time that the philosophy of civilization arose as an independent philosophical discipline. The followers of neo-Kantianism (Rickert and M. Weber) viewed it primarily as a specific system of values ​​and ideas that differ in their role in the life and organization of a society of one type or another. The concept of the German idealist philosopher O. Spengler is interesting. Its essence lies in the consideration of culture as an organism that has unity and is isolated from other similar organisms. Each cultural organism, according to Spengler, has a predetermined limit, after which culture, dying, is reborn into civilization. Thus, civilization is seen as the opposite of culture. This means that there is no single common human culture and cannot be.

From this point of view, culture is very closely related to the theory
of the "local" civilizations of the English historian A. Toynbee. Toynbee gives his definition of civilization - "the totality of spiritual, economic, political means that a person is armed with in his struggle with the outside world." Toynbee created the theory of the historical cycle of culture, presenting world history as a set of separate closed and peculiar civilizations, the number of which varied from 14 to 21.
Each civilization, like an organism, goes through the stages of origin, growth, crisis (breakdown, decay). On this basis, he deduced the empirical laws of the recurrence of social development, the driving force of which is the elite, the creative minority, the bearer of the "vital impulse".
Toynbee saw a single line of progressive development of mankind in religious evolution from primitive animistic beliefs through a universal religion to a single syncretic religion of the future.

In the light of all that has been said, the general meaning of the civilizational approach becomes clear - to build a typology of social systems proceeding from certain, qualitatively different technical and technological bases. Long-term disregard for the civilizational approach seriously impoverished our historical science and social philosophy, prevented us from understanding many processes and phenomena. Restoring rights and enriching the civilizational approach will make our vision of history more multidimensional.

The red line in the development of civilization is the growth of integration tendencies in society - tendencies that cannot be deduced directly and only from the laws of the functioning and development of a particular formation. In particular, outside the civilizational approach, it is impossible to understand the essence and specifics of modern Western society, just as it is impossible to give a true assessment of the disintegration processes unfolding on the scale of the former USSR and Eastern Europe. This is all the more important because these processes are passed off and accepted by many as a movement towards civilization.

From the essence and structure of socio-economic formations, concrete historical forms of organizing a social economy (natural, natural-commodity, commodity, commodity-planned) cannot be directly derived, since these forms are directly determined by the technical and technological basis underlying civilization. The conjugation of the forms of organizing the social economy with the waves (steps) of civilization makes it possible to understand that the naturalization of economic relations in any historical conditions is not a movement forward, along the line of development of civilization: we have a backward historical movement.

The civilizational approach allows us to understand the genesis, characteristic features and development trends of various socio-ethnic communities, which, again, are not directly related to the formational division of society.

With the civilizational approach, our ideas about the socio-psychological appearance of this particular society, its mentality are also enriched, and the active role of public consciousness appears more vividly, because many features of this appearance are a reflection of the technical and technological basis that underlies this or that stage of civilization.

The civilizational approach is quite consistent with modern ideas about culture as a non-biological, purely social way of human and society activity. Moreover, the civilizational approach allows us to consider culture in its entirety, without excluding a single structural element. On the other hand, the very transition to civilization can be understood only in the light of the fact that it was a key point in the formation of culture.

Thus, the civilizational approach allows us to delve deeply into another very important section of the historical process - the civilizational one.

Concluding the consideration of the civilizational approach, it remains to answer one question: how to explain the chronic lag of Marxism in the development and use of the civilizational approach?

Obviously, there was a whole range of reasons at work.

A. Marxism was formed to a very large extent as a Eurocentric teaching, about which its founders themselves warned.
The study of history in its civilizational section involves the use of the comparative method as the most important, that is, a comparative analysis of various, often dissimilar local civilizations.
Since in this case the focus was on one region, which is a unity in origin and in the modern (meaning the 19th century) state, the civilizational aspect of the analysis was forced to be in the shadows.

B. On the other hand, F. Engels introduced a final limiter: civilization is what was before communism, it is a series of antagonistic formations. In terms of research, this meant that Marx and Engels were directly interested only in that stage of civilization, from which communism was to arise. Torn out of the civilizational context, capitalism appeared before both the researcher and the reader exclusively (or primarily) in its formational guise.

Q. Marxism is characterized by an exaggerated attention to the forces disintegrating society, with a simultaneous significant underestimation of the forces of integration, but after all, civilization in its original meaning is a movement towards integration, towards curbing destructive forces. And since this is so, then the chronic lag of Marxism in the development of a civilizational concept becomes quite understandable.

D. The relationship with the long-term “inattention” of Marxism to the problem of the active role of non-economic factors is easily revealed. Responding to his opponents on this matter, Engels pointed out that the materialist understanding of history was formed in the struggle against idealism, due to which neither Marx nor he for decades had enough time, reasons, or strength to devote to noneconomic phenomena (the state, spiritual superstructure, geographic conditions, etc.) the same attention as the economy. But the technical and technological basis that lies in the foundation of civilization is also a non-economic phenomenon.

Features of Russian civilization

The specifics of Russia must be understood by its Western partners as well, which should neither harbor unnecessary fears about it, nor experience illusions. And then they will not be surprised that this country is so reluctant, with visible difficulty, suspicion, and even irritation, accepts even the most benevolent advice and does not squeeze into the political and social models offered to it from the outside. And maybe, without prejudice and allergy, they will be able to perceive the new, although not in everything similar to the Western, look that she will take when she leaves the fitting room of history, if she finally decides, after trying different clothes, to permanently remove the Stalinist greatcoat, which has become the eyes of many Russians are almost like a national costume.

Asserting that Russia is a "special civilization", Andrei Sakharov, for example, simultaneously expressed another idea. It is about the fact that our country must go through, albeit with a significant delay, the same civilizational stages of evolution as other developed countries. You involuntarily ask yourself: which point of view is more consistent with the true state of affairs? In my opinion, one should proceed from the fact that Russia is a special civilization that has absorbed a lot of Western and Eastern cultures over the course of many centuries and has melted something completely special in its cauldron. So, judging by some comments, Sakharov himself thinks. Passing the path of modernization, he rightly notes, Russia followed its own unique path.
He saw very different from other countries not only the past, but also the future of our fatherland, which is already largely determined by its past.
The special nature of our path presupposes, among other things, that the same civilizational stages of development that the West has gone through, associated, for example, with the transition to democracy, civil society and the rule of law, will have noticeable differences in Russia from foreign analogues.
Each earthly civilization has its own prologue, its own path of development and its own epilogue, its own essence and forms.

The peculiarity and uniqueness of each civilization does not exclude their interaction, mutual influence, interpenetration and, finally, even rapprochement, which is very characteristic of the 20th century. But at the same time, rejection, and confrontation, and a merciless struggle, waged not only in cold, but also hot forms, and much more, cannot be ruled out.

What are the features Russian civilization? It seems that these features lie in the special organization of Russian public and state life; in the essence and structure of power, methods of its implementation; in the peculiarities of national psychology and worldview; in the organization of labor and everyday life of the population; in the traditions, culture of numerous peoples of Russia, etc., etc. A very important feature (perhaps even the most important) of Russian civilization is a special relationship between material and spiritual principles in favor of the latter. True, now this ratio is changing in favor of the former. And yet, from my point of view, the high role of spirituality in Russia will remain. And this will be for the good of both herself and the rest of the world.

This statement should not at all mean that the standard of living of Russians should remain low and be lower than in advanced countries. Vice versa.
It is highly desirable that it grow dynamically and eventually catch up with world standards. To achieve this goal, Russia has everything it needs. But, increasing the level of comfort of his life and work, a person must remain a highly spiritual and humane being.

Based on the foregoing, it is legitimate to question the statement
Sakharov that "Russia, for a number of historical reasons ... found itself on the sidelines of the European world." A special civilization with its own path of development cannot be on the sidelines of another path. The foregoing does not at all exclude the possibility of comparing the levels of development of various civilizations, both past and present times, their achievements and values ​​for all mankind. But speaking about the levels of civilization of certain societies, one must take into account the specific stage of their development.

At the end of the 20th century, thanks to perestroika and post-perestroika, Russian society, in essence, for the first time in its history (1917 and the years of NEP were the first attempt to break through to freedom, but, unfortunately, unsuccessful) acquired, albeit not quite complete and not quite guaranteed , but still freedom: economic, spiritual, informational. Interest will not be born without these freedoms
- the most important engine of all progress, the nation will not succeed, etc.

But it is one thing to have the right or the freedoms themselves, and quite another thing is to be able to use them, combining freedom with self-restraint, rigidly obeying the law. Unfortunately, our society is not yet fully prepared to rationally and prudently practice the acquired freedoms in everyday life for oneself and others for the benefit of others. But it learns quickly and it is hoped that the results will be impressive.

Sustainable long-term use of freedoms should have as its final result that Russia as a "special civilization" will reveal to the world all its potential and all its might and finally turn the course of its history into an evolutionary course. This is precisely the main meaning and the highest goal of what is happening in our time.

Multidimensional vision of history

As already noted, in the course of modern discussions, there has been a clear tendency to resolve the issue of the prospects for the application and the very fate of the formational and civilizational approaches on the basis of the "either - or" principle. In all such concepts, historical science, in fact, is excluded from the scope of general scientific laws and, in particular, does not obey the principle of correspondence, according to which the old theory is not completely denied, since it necessarily corresponds to something in the new theory, represents its particular, extreme case.

The problem that has arisen in historical science and social science as a whole can and must be solved according to the "and - and" principle. Purposeful research and finding such a conjugation of formational and civilizational paradigms is necessary, which can be fruitfully applied to solving the problem of large-scale division of the historical process, which will make the very vision of history more multidimensional.

Each of the considered paradigms is necessary and important, but insufficient in itself. Thus, the civilizational approach by itself cannot explain the reasons and mechanism of the transition from one stage of civilization to another. A similar deficiency is revealed when trying to explain why integration trends in past history for millennia, starting with the slave-owning society, they made their way in disintegration forms.

Both the "formation specialists" and "civilization specialists" have ample opportunities to overcome one-sidedness and enrich their concepts.
In particular, the "formationists", along with the task of freeing their concept from what has not stood the test of time, will have to make up for the decades-long lag of Marxism in the development of problems related to civilization.

The relationship between the formational (with its economic basis) and civilizational (with its technical and technological basis) is real and tangible.
We are convinced of this as soon as we begin to combine two linear schematic images: the process of civilizational development of mankind and the process of its formational development (see diagram). When resorting to diagrams, it is appropriate to recall K. Jaspers: "An attempt to structure history, to divide it into a number of periods always leads to gross simplifications, but these simplifications can serve as arrows pointing to essential points."

socialization

| Formation | Primitive | Slave owner | Feudal lord | Capitalism |
| new | society | ene | change | |
| development | | | | |
| Civilizats | Savagery | Barbarian | Agricultural | Industrial | Information-com |
| ionic | | your | | naya | pewter |
| development | | | | | |

Pre-civilization period Waves of civilization

In some cases, as we see, on the same technical and technological basis (the agricultural wave of civilization), two socio-economic formations that are fundamentally different from each other grow, successively replacing each other, or in parallel - in different peoples in different ways. In the top line of the diagram, the socio-economic formation (capitalism) "does not fit" into the wave it seemingly assigned to it
(industrial) and "invades" the next cell, which is still free from designation. This cell was not named because nowhere in the world has the formation system following capitalism been clearly and definitely defined, although the processes of socialization were clearly visible in developed countries.

And yet the essential overlap of two linear series of historical development allows the scheme to be detected, although this connection is not rigid, let alone automatic. It is mediated by a number of factors (natural, ethnic, finally, socio-psychological). Not the least role among these mediating links is played by the form of organization of the public economy, determined by the technical and technological basis of this wave of civilization in conjunction with the corresponding degree of social division of labor and the degree of development of information and transport infrastructure.

The conjugation of the formational and civilizational is dialectically contradictory in nature, which is already revealed in the analysis of the transition to civilization as a social revolution.

Here the question immediately arises: is the aforementioned revolution identical with the social revolution that has absorbed the main content of the transition from primitive society to the first class formation? It is hardly necessary to speak of complete identity (coincidence), if only because the beginning of the transition to civilization - and there was a certain logic in this - preceded the beginning of the transition to a class society.

But then the second question arises: if these two social upheavals are not identical, then to what extent do they overlap each other in social space and how do they relate in time? Obviously, the first coup precedes the second only to some extent, because, having arisen for integrative purposes, civilization in those specific historical conditions could fulfill this main function only in a disintegrative
(antagonistic) form. Hence the inconsistency of social institutions, their functions and activities in a class-antagonistic society.

In order to gain a deeper understanding of the relationship between the two analyzed coups and the driving force behind their merger, it is advisable to at least dotted lines indicate the essence of each of them.

The impetus for a cardinal social revolution, called the transition to civilization, was the technical revolution that gave life to cultural and sedentary agriculture, that is, the historically first type of productive economy. This was the starting position of the agricultural civilization.
The essence of the transition to civilization consisted in the displacement of blood-related ties and relations (production, territorial, etc.) by purely and proper social, supra-biological, and it was the transition to a production economy that caused both the possibility and necessity of such displacement.

As for the surplus product, it itself was also a consequence of the transition to a productive economy, a consequence of its increasing economic efficiency. The links between the process of transition to civilization and the emergence of a surplus product can be defined as functional, derived from the same causal factor. It is another matter that, having been born, the surplus product raised the question of that concrete historical - and therefore the only possible - form in which the development of civilization will continue. Under those conditions, such a concrete historical form could only be antagonistic, and here we have to speak of antagonism in two senses. Firstly, with all its further development, civilization consolidated the antagonism that arose in the depths of society, and secondly, a certain antagonistic contradiction has developed between the integrating essence of civilization and the disintegrating form of its functioning within the framework of a whole series of socio-economic formations.

The emerging classes used the social institutions that had already taken shape in the process of the transition to civilization to consolidate their domination. This became possible because a) the social institutions themselves in their potential contained the possibility of alienation; b) this possibility in those historical conditions could not be “muted”. In order to
To "muffle" it in the bud, a mature political culture of society and, above all, of the masses is required. On the threshold of civilization, political culture (as well as the sphere of politics in general) was just emerging.

The classes that took over the social institutions, thereby got the opportunity to leave a significant imprint on many other civilizational processes and subordinate them to their own selfish class interests. (Since classes are the essence of a formational order, their impact on civilizational processes expresses an essential aspect of the conjugation of formational and civilizational processes). This happened with the process of separation of spiritual production from material production (the privilege of doing mental labor was assigned to the exploiters), with the process of urbanization (the differences between town and country turned into the opposite, characterized by the exploitation of the countryside by the ruling classes of the city), with the process of crystallization of the personality element in history. (the vegetation of the broadest popular masses for centuries served as a background for the activities of prominent personalities from the exploiting strata).

Thus, both historical processes - the transition to civilization and the transition to the first class formation - overlapped in the most essential way and together constituted such a revolution, which in its cardinality can only be compared with the processes of socialization currently taking place in developed, civilized countries.

Conclusion

Connecting the civilizational component to the analysis allows us to make our vision of both the historical perspective and the historical retrospective more panoramic, to better understand those elements of society that, in fact, turn out to be more closely related to the civilizational rather than the formation.

Take, for example, the process of evolution of socio-ethnic communities.
When the socio-ethnic series is coupled only with the formation one, the conclusion involuntarily suggests itself that the connection between them is causal and fundamental. But this raises several questions. And the main one: if a specific form of a socio-ethnic community decisively depends on the economic mode of production, and on both of its sides - both on the level of productive forces and on the type of production relations, then how to explain that in some cases this community is preserved and with a fundamental change in the type of industrial relations
(nationality is characteristic of both slavery and feudalism), in others, the type of community is preserved even during the transition to a new wave of civilization, to a new technical and technological basis (such is the nation that will most likely remain for the foreseeable future and in conditions of gaining the power of the information and computer wave of civilization)?

Obviously, in both cases there are factors that are deeper than formational ones, but less profound than civilizational ones, derived from the latter. And in the case of a nationality, and in the case of a nation, the ultimate cause (causa finalis) is certain types of technical and technological basis that lie in the foundation of successively replacing agricultural, industrial and information-computer waves of civilization. Thus, the technical and technological basis of the agricultural wave, causing the preservation throughout the wave of the natural-commodity form of organization of production, does not allow the formation of a single economic
(economic) life, that is, it imposes a ban on the transformation of a nationality into a nation. In the second case, the guarantor of the preservation of the nation as a form of community adequate to the given socio-economic conditions is again ultimately the technical and technological basis, and directly above it (but deeper than the formation) and genetically related forms of organization of the social economy. Commodity in its classical form, commodity-planned and planned-commodity forms of organization of the social economy are united in the sense that they sanction the emergence, preservation, consolidation and development of the nation, for all three of these forms are characterized by the presence of commodity with an increase from zero to optium degree its adjustability (regularity).

So, the conjugation of the formational and civilizational is clearly traced on the example of the genesis and development of socio-ethnic communities.
Bibliography

Krapivensky S.E. Social philosophy. - Volgograd, Press Committee,
1996.
V.A. Kanke. Philosophy. M., "Logos", 1996.
Foundations of philosophy. Ed. E.V. Popova, M., "Vlados", 1997
Philosophy. Tutorial... Ed. Kokhanovsky V.P., R / Don., "Phoenix",
1998.

It is based on the idea of ​​the uniqueness of social phenomena, the originality of the path traversed by individual peoples. From this point of view, the historical process is the change of a number of civilizations that existed at different times in different regions of the planet and simultaneously exist at the present time. Today, more than 100 variants of the interpretation of the word "civilization" are known. From the Marxist-Leninist, long dominant point of view, this is a stage in historical development that follows savagery and barbarism. Today, researchers are inclined to believe that civilization is a qualitative specificity (originality of spiritual, material, social life) of a particular group of countries, peoples at a certain stage of development. "Civilization is a combination of spiritual, material and moral means with which a given community equips its member in its opposition to the outside world." (M. Barg)

Any civilization is characterized by a specific social production technology and, to no less extent, by a culture corresponding to it. It is characterized by a certain philosophy, socially significant values, a generalized image of the world, a specific way of life with its own special life principle, the basis of which is the spirit of the people, its morality, conviction, which determine a certain attitude towards people and towards themselves. This main life principle unites people in a given civilization, ensures unity for a long period of history.

Thus, the civilizational approach provides answers to many questions. Together with the elements of the formation doctrine (about the development of mankind along the ascending line, the doctrine of class struggle, but not as an all-encompassing form of development, the primacy of economics over politics), it allows you to build a holistic historical picture.

In the XX century. The work of A. Toynbee (1889-1975) "Comprehension of history" was and remains a major work exploring the civilizational approach to the study of history. As a result of the analysis of numerous historical facts, he comes to the conclusion that there were 21 civilizations. A. Toynbee analyzes the genesis and decline of civilizations. The concept of civilization, in his opinion, is based on two main pillars: civilization is a set of people stable in time and space (territory) with a characteristic mode of production, first of all, and a kind of moral (spiritual) -cultural-religious-ethnic aspect, Secondly. These two pillars are of equal size. It is this equalness in the definition of civilization that provides the key to understanding many complex problems (for example, the national question).

As part of the study of this course, we are interested in the definition of the civilization of Russia, Western Europe, America, our eastern and southern neighbors. A. Toynbee distinguishes Western civilization, Orthodox Christian (Rus, Russia), Islamic, Chinese, Indian; satellite civilizations: Iranian, Korean, Japanese, Southeast Asian, Tibetan.

Civilization, its main types:

1. Progressive (Western) type of civilization development.

2. Type of cyclical development (eastern).

Progressive (Western) type of civilization

1. Linear view of time. The past is past, it cannot be changed, but lessons can be learned. The present is a man, his active character. Future - a person can influence it.

2. The dominant ideal is forward movement. It goes in fits and starts and is accompanied by the destruction of the old system of values.

3. Mono-confessional - one religion.

4. Man is the central link of society, the master of the world. Lost connections with nature, man influences the world in their own interests.

5. Freedom of the individual is one of the basic concepts of Western society. The interests of the individual are in the foreground.

6. Developed private property.

7. High prestige of entrepreneurship. The market as a way of functioning of the economy, its regulator. High prestige of labor, its morality.

8. The presence of horizontal ties (cultural, social, social), independent of the government, ie. civil society. The rule of law over the law.

9. The form of government is democracy.

Cyclical development type (eastern)

1. A peculiar idea of ​​time. An essential part of the worldview is belief in an endless chain of death and rebirth. The future of humanity had to be earned by a righteous life. Such a theory gave rise to the idea of ​​the eternal movement of all living things in a closed cycle (everything once already happened and will ever repeat itself again). The famous fatalism of the East originates from here.

2. The development of the East is not in jerks, but appears as a solid line. The new here does not destroy the foundations of civilization, but fits into the old and dissolves in it. Sustainability is an important property of Eastern civilizations.

3. Multi-confessionalism. The religions of the East are, first of all, the paths of self-improvement, and through them the improvement of the surrounding world.

4. An important feature of Eastern society is its connection with nature. The man of the East does not lose touch with the environment. The world is perceived by him as a single whole, and man in this world is not the master, but only a component part.

5. In the East there is no valued western civilization freedom concept. The Eastern person is not free, but obliged.

He is obliged to observe traditions, rituals, a system of subordination, and everyone is bound by duty - from the sovereign to his subjects. Social roles are strictly distributed, society has a vertical structure: ruler, bureaucracy, communities.

6. The state assumes the disposal of the property. Private property as a self-reproducing capital is not developed. The interests of social groups and communities are strong. The interests of the individual are subordinated to the collective. Large state property is possible.

7. Horizontal ties (cultural, ideological, social) are not developed. There is the rule of law over law.

8. The main form of government is despotism.

Black-moss peasants... Peasants living on "black" state land and operated by the state. In the XVII century. they were in Pomorie and Siberia. Taxes were paid to the state. They could transfer their plots by inheritance on the condition that the owner fulfilled the tax. Together they owned rivers, pastures, forests. Were organized into communities. Closely connected with local settlements.

Economic development of Russia in the 17th century. XVII century- the time of the mass settlement of the Volga, the Cis-Urals, the beginning of the development of Siberia. The dominant farming system was threefields. Growth of commercial production of agricultural products. Crafts and small-scale commodity production are the dominant forms of industrial production. It was new in the 17th century. the use of hired labor. Manufactories arose and developed (the Money House, the Armory). Construction of copper, iron-smelting and ironworks. Textile factories. In total in the 17th century. there were about 30 manufactories.

Development of market relations and specialization of areas. The most important point of foreign trade is Arkhangelsk. In 1653, the Customs Charter was issued, regulating internal trade and introducing a single ruble duty. In 1667 the New Trade Charter was issued. It concerned foreign trade and was of a protectionist nature (compiled with the participation of A. Ordin-Nashchokin). Taxes under Mikhail Romanov have doubled. In 1646, 1677. house-to-house population censuses were carried out. In the years 1679-1681. the government abandoned the pososny (from the "plow") taxation and passed to the courtyard (from the "yard"). Growth of local land tenure. On the issue of land funds, the nobility again in the 17th century. collided with the church. The Church had to part with for the most part of their city possessions during the Posad reform of 1649-1652. The Code of 1649 forbade the church to acquire new lands.

Forms of feudal rent: natural quitrent, monetary quitrent, corvee (work on a lord's arable land and estate). Central governing bodies - orders. Local government bodies (the country was divided into about 250 counties) are represented by groups of counties (in the 19th century - provinces), which were led by voivods. Armed forces - the withering away of the old local noble army and the creation of soldiers, dragoons and reitar regiments on a permanent basis.

Ethnic system- a community of people united by attitude and behavior stereotypes.

Ethnogenesis- the process of the origin and development of ethnic groups (origin of peoples).

Ethnology (ethnography)- ethnology, a science that studies the everyday and cultural characteristics of peoples, problems of origin (ethnogenesis), settlement (ethnogeography) and the relationship of peoples.

Ethnos- a collective of people naturally formed on the basis of an original stereotype of behavior, existing as a system that opposes itself to other similar systems. Ethnicity - sustainable social group people represented by a tribe, nationality, nation. The term is close to the concept of "people" in the ethnographic sense. Sometimes it denotes several peoples (Slavic ethnos) or a part within the people.

Paganism- traditional beliefs of the ancient Slavs (pre-Christian), including mythology, magic, rituals. The mythological part included the ideas of the ancients about the origin of the universe, nature, man, animals, plants, facts of past life and their relationship with each other. Magic - industrial, medical, etc. - determined the relationship of a particular person with the world around him. Ritualism was the connecting link and the external manifestation of paganism. With the adoption of Christianity, in the 10th century, in Russia, paganism was not completely supplanted in the 15th-16th centuries. had a parallel circulation among the people with Christianity. Some of its manifestations were noticed as early as the 19th-20th centuries.

With the development of the eastern territories from the Urals to The Pacific the indigenous peoples of this region were included in Russia: the Tungus, Tofalars, Evenks, etc. Their traditional beliefs from the 17th century. to the present time, one can qualify as paganism (both objectively and according to their own current assessments).

A prominent researcher of this phenomenon was B.A. Rybakov (Paganism of the ancient Slavs; Paganism of Ancient Rus and other books).

Label- immunity privileged letters given by the Golden Horde to rulers under their control. Labels were issued to the princes of North-Eastern Russia for the great and appanage reign. Labels were also issued to Russian metropolitans for the exemption of the Russian Church from taxes and duties.

Trade fairs- regular trades; markets that met at a specific place and at a specific time. They appeared in Russia in the XII century. They developed especially in the 17th century, when a national market began to form in the country. The most famous fairs in the XVII - 1st floor. XIX centuries - Makarievskaya, Irbitskaya, Kontraktova (near Kiev), Kyakhtinskaya, Kharkovskie

The civilizational approach to the study of history is one of the methods used by scientific minds to clarify important questions of the course of events in the historical process of different eras. This method was greatly influenced by the works of such historians as A. Toynbee, K. Jaspers, N. Ya. Danilevsky and many others.

The study of the course of historical events on a global scale makes it possible to trace and understand how diverse this process is, and how many options for the formation of society, which differ not only in advantages, but also in disadvantages.

The civilizational approach exists along with the formation approach, the main difference of which is that the basis of its study is socio-economic relations, independent of the will of a person. They exist due to objective circumstances. Civilizational, on the other hand, puts a person at the head of all ongoing processes, taking into account his norms of behavior, aesthetic and ethical views.

The concept of "civilization" appears in ancient times, but in the 18th century it became a fundamental part of the historical vocabulary. It was from this time that representatives of science began to actively use it. In addition, the emergence of various theories of civilizations is also characteristic. I would like to note that the concept of "civilization" in ancient times was contrasted with another Latin concept, meaning "savagery". Already in those distant times, people saw the difference between a barbaric and civilized society and life in general.

Returning to the theories, the two main ones are stage and local. In accordance with the first, civilization is a process of development at certain stages. It can be considered its initial moment of the collapse of primitive society, as a result of which mankind passed into the stage of the civilized world. Such civilizations can be classified as primary, since they did not have the opportunity to use the civilizational traditions that developed at a later time. They created them on their own, bearing fruit for subsequent formations. The local civilizational approach studies the historical aspects of the emergence of a community in a certain territory, which is characterized by its own socio-economic, cultural, and political characteristics. Local civilizations can exist both within the framework of a certain state, and when several states are united.

A local civilization is a system that consists of various interrelated components: political structure, economic situation, geographical position, religion and many others. All these components perfectly reflect the uniqueness of a particular civilization.

The civilizational approach, just like the stadial approach, helps to look at the historical course of events from different angles. The stadial approach is characterized by the consideration of the development of mankind in accordance with uniform and general laws. is based on individuality and a variety of historical processes. Therefore, it is very difficult to say which theory is better or worse. They both have the right to exist, since they are complementary to each other, possessing their own advantages. Historical scientists have repeatedly attempted to combine both methods of study, but so far this has not happened, and it has not been developed general system that would combine both theories.

Summing up, it should be noted that the civilizational approach helps to understand the basic laws and directions of the formation and formation of world civilization, the originality of individual civilizations, and also makes it possible to compare the development processes of different civilizations.

Long time in domestic literature and science there was only one approach to the consideration and study of the past of mankind. According to him, the entire development of society is subject to changes in economic formations. This theory was put forward and clearly substantiated by Karl Marx. But today, more and more often, history is considered from the point of view of a wider range of development factors, combining together the formational and civilizational approaches to the history of origin and development.

There are many explanations for this phenomenon, but the main one is that Marx's theory is one-sided and does not take into account many factors and historical information that cannot but be taken into account when studying such a multifaceted phenomenon as society.

Formational and based in their following on the following factors:

1. formational - based on economic development and ownership;
2. civilizational - takes into account all the elements of life, from religious to the relationship "individual - power".

It should be noted that as such a single concept in the civilizational approach has not been developed. Each researcher also takes into account only one or two factors. So, Toynbee identifies sixteen based on the development of society within a single territory from its inception to peak and decline. In contrast, Walt Rostow singles out only 5 civilizations, the basis of which is placed on the ratio of "population - consumption", the highest of which is the state of mass consumption.

As can be seen from the latter theory, the formational and civilizational approaches quite often overlap with each other, which does not seem strange. This situation is due to the fact that they all characterize the history of society from only one point of view. Thus, both the formational and civilizational approaches to the study of society cannot fully reveal its emergence and development at all stages, based solely on one method.

Thus, the most complete of them are the theory of formations of Marx and the theory of civilizations of Toynbee. At the same time, most researchers in recent years are increasingly inclined to think that if we combine the key parameters of these concepts, then the formational and civilizational approaches are able to fully substantiate why the development of science, economy, culture and other spheres of public life followed the path that can be traced through the pages of history.

The above is due to the fact that Marx's theory of 5 stages (formations) of human development is based mainly on the type of economy and the development of tools. Toynbee's theory effectively complements it by revealing social, religious, cultural, scientific and other factors. It is worth noting that in the early stages Toynbee paid more attention to the religious component, which was the reason for their opposition. Over time, the situation has changed, and today the formational and civilizational approaches to the study of society are divided only conditionally.

It is worth noting that these methods of comprehending history have both disadvantages and advantages. Thus, the theory of formations has a detailed study of all aspects of the five stages of the economic history of any community. The disadvantage is the one-sided understanding of the processes occurring in states (namely, they are studied by Marx's theory), expressed in the fact that only the countries of Europe were identified as the subject for study. The experience of the Arab, American and African world was not taken into account. Toynbee, the "father" of the theory of civilizations, based his judgments on approximately the same factor.

Formational and civilizational approaches to the history of human development in this moment are opposed, which is fundamentally wrong. Such an attitude to the methods of researching the essence of improving society does not leave the opportunity to most accurately consider all the deep processes taking place in society. Therefore, to prevent the formation of white spots, the formation and civilizational approaches should be applied simultaneously.

• On the subject of philosophy of history
  • On the subject of philosophy of history
  • The relevance of the philosophy of history
  • The structure of historiosophical knowledge
    • The structure of historiosophical knowledge - page 2
• The concept of a two-hemispheric structure of the world: the meaning of the East-West dichotomy
  • Crisis of Eurocentrism
  • Bipolar model world history
  • Prospects for post-industrial civilization in the horizon of open history
    • Prospects for post-industrial civilization in the horizon of open history - page 2
    • Prospects for post-industrial civilization in the horizon of open history - page 3
    • Prospects for post-industrial civilization in the horizon of open history - page 4
  • Eastern and Western megacycles of world history
    • Eastern and Western megacycles of world history - page 2
    • Eastern and Western megacycles of world history - page 3
• Problems of democratization of the historical process
  • Historical and non-historical peoples: the drama of "catch-up development"
  • The crisis of the postulates of historical rationality
    • The crisis of the postulates of historical rationality - page 2
  • Historicism and finalism
  • Paradoxes of historical creativity
    • Paradoxes of historical creativity - page 2
    • Paradoxes of historical creativity - page 3
  • Utopia of progressivism and its alternatives
• Global Peace: Collisions of Acquiring a Human Perspective
  • "Open Society" as a Western Model of the Global World
    • "Open Society" as a Western Model of the Global World - page 2
  • The limitedness of the North-South dichotomy in global studies
  • Paradoxes of intercultural exchange in the global world
    • Paradoxes of intercultural exchange in the global world - page 2
  • Global projects of the global world
    • Global projects of the global world - page 2
    • Global projects of the global world - page 3
• The meaning of the story
  • Antique, Christian and Enlightenment View of History
    • An antique, Christian and enlightenment view of history - page 2
    • An antique, Christian and enlightenment view of history - page 3
    • An antique, Christian and enlightenment view of history - page 4
    • An antique, Christian and enlightenment view of history - page 5
  • The first paradox of world history: "from boundless freedom to boundless despotism"
  • The second paradox of world history: "the misadventures of total order"
    • The second paradox of world history: "the misadventures of total order" - page 2
  • The third paradox of world history: "blessed are the poor in spirit"
    • The third paradox of world history: "blessed are the" poor in spirit "" - page 2
  • The meaning and purpose of history
    • The meaning and purpose of history - page 2
• German School of Philosophy of History
  • General characteristics of the German historiosophical tradition
  • H. Hegel's school and the concept of a universal historical process
  • Organology of the German "historical school". A. Müller, F. Schelling, W. Humboldt
  • Prussian school. I.G. Droysen
  • Positivism in German Historiosophy. W. Wundt
  • School of Psychologizing Philosophers of Life. F. Nietzsche, W. Dilthey
  • Southwestern (Baden) Neo-Kantian School. V. Windelband, M. Weber
  • Marburg neo-Kantian school. G. Cohen, P. Natorp
  • Historical dynamics German school in the context of modernity
• French School of Philosophy of History: Anthropological Foundations of European Civilization
  • General characteristics of the French historiosophical tradition
  • Historiosophical constructivism of R. Descartes
  • "Tragic realism" of B. Pascal's historiosophy
  • French enlighteners on the philosophy of history
    • French educators on the philosophy of history - page 2
    • French educators on the philosophy of history - page 3
    • French educators on the philosophy of history - page 4
    • French educators on the philosophy of history - page 5
  • French romantic historiography. F. Guizot, O. Thierry, F. Mignet, J. Michelet
  • Historiosophical tradition of utopian socialism. Saint-Simon
  • Positivism in French Historiosophy. O. Comte, E. Lavisse
  • Biologizing concepts of the philosophy of history. J.A. Gobino, V. Lyapuzh
  • Historiosophical sociologism of E. Durkheim
  • School "Annals"
    • School "Annals" - page 2
  • New Historical School. P. Nora
  • The rationalistic trend of French historiosophy. R. Aron
  • Historical nihilism of the "new philosophers"
  • Historiosophy of the "new right". A. de Benois, P. Vial, I. Blo
• Philosophical and historical thought of russia
  • General characteristics of the Russian historiosophical tradition
  • "Older wisdom"
    • "Older wisdom" - page 2
  • Ideodogema "Moscow - the third Rome"
  • Russian enlightenment and the search for national identity
  • Controversy between Slavophiles and Westernizers. Russian idea
    • Controversy between Slavophiles and Westernizers. Russian idea - page 2
  • Historiosophical landmarks of Westerners
  • Models of cultural and historical types
    • Models of cultural and historical types - page 2
  • Sociological direction. "Formula of progress"
  • G. Plekhanov's school and "legal Marxism"
    • G. Plekhanov's school and "legal Marxism" - page 2
  • The metaphysics of the all-unity of Vl. Solovyov. History as a God-human process
    • The metaphysics of the all-unity of Vl. Solovyov. History as a Divine-human process - page 2
  • Religious materialism of S. Bulgakov
  • Historiosophy of all-unity L. Karsavin
  • Historiosophy of the Eurasians
    • Historiosophy of the Eurasians - page 2
  • N. Berdyaev: the doctrine of freedom of spirit and the end of history
    • N. Berdyaev: teaching about freedom of spirit and the end of history - page 2
• Interpretations of history and the paradigm of historical knowledge
  • On the possibilities and limits of historiosophical interpretation
  • The cyclical paradigm of history
    • The cyclical paradigm of history - page 2
    • The cyclical paradigm of history - page 3
    • The cyclical paradigm of history - page 4
    • The cyclical paradigm of history - page 5
  • The paradigm of historical progress
    • Paradigm of historical progress - page 2
  • Postmodern paradigm of history
• Formational and civilizational approaches to history: pro et contra
  • Formations or Civilizations?
  • On the formational approach to history
    • On the formational approach to history - page 2
    • On the formational approach to history - page 3
  • On the relationship between the formational and civilizational approaches to history
    • On the relationship between formational and civilizational approaches to history - page 2
  • Possible ways to modernize the formation approach
    • On possible ways to modernize the formation approach - page 2
    • On possible ways to modernize the formation approach - page 3
    • On possible ways to modernize the formation approach - page 4

On the essence of a civilizational approach to history

If the essence of the formational approach to history is revealed quite easily, since the formational theory is a more or less integral teaching, then the situation with the civilizational approach is more complicated. There is no single civilizational theory as such. The term "civilization" itself is very ambiguous.

For example, in the "Philosophical Encyclopedic Dictionary" its three meanings are given:

1. synonym for culture;
2. the level or stage of social development of material and spiritual culture;
3. the stage of social development following barbarism.

Most recently, among Russian historians and philosophers, attempts to somehow streamline, bring existing concepts of civilization into a certain logically verified system have become more frequent. There is even a proposal to highlight new science called "civilography".

But as one of the researchers admits, the desire to turn “the theory of civilizations into a methodological basis for the study of the world and national history"" Is in contradiction with insufficient research of the very theory of civilizations as a subject of philosophical and historical knowledge, the reasons for its emergence and the laws of development, the limits of its applicability. "

However, there is no reason to speak of the "theory of civilizations" as a unified scientific theory. In fact, there are various theories of civilizations. And the civilizational approach itself is a kind of summative set of similar methodological attitudes and principles. This is where the weak points of the civilizational approach stem from. Chief among them is amorphousness, vagueness of the criteria by which civilizations and their types are distinguished; poor certainty of causal relationships between these criteria.

An analysis of the evolution of the concept of "civilization" over the past 2.5 centuries (since the appearance of this term in science) shows that the process of its formation as a scientific category proceeded very slowly and, in fact, has not yet been completed. I.N. Ionov, who investigated this issue, distinguishes three stages of this evolution. The first covers the period from the mid-18th to the mid-19th centuries. Its representatives are F. Voltaire, A. Fergusson, A.R. Turgot, I.G. Herder, F. Guizot, Hegel and others.

This stage is dominated by reckless historical optimism, the convergence (even merging) of the ideas of civilization and progress, a linear-stage characteristic of the process of civilization (the concept of development progress was systemic in the idea of ​​the goal of history put forward into the future, for the substantiation of which historical events were lined up in a linear order, and events that did not correspond to the scheme were cut off).

The concept of "civilization" was used exclusively in the singular, denoting humanity as a whole, and had a pronounced evaluative character (savagery, barbarism, civilization).

National and cultural differences were considered secondary, associated with the characteristics of the environment, race, cultural tradition. At this stage, ideas about history as a set of unique local cultures appeared (I.G. Herder), but they remained unclaimed at that time.

At the second stage (second half of the 19th century), ideas about the integrity and coherence of history continue to dominate in the theories of the historical process. Thinkers proceed from the fundamental compatibility of the logical and historical approaches to its study.

Analysis of the cause-and-effect relationships of reality, the striving for historical synthesis prevails. Sociologization of the theories of civilization remains the main trend in their development (ideas about the determining role of the geographical factor, about the development of the structure of society in the process of its adaptation to environment). But historical optimism is noticeably diminishing. The idea of ​​progress is being challenged more and more. Representatives of this stage are O. Comte, G. Spencer, G.T. Bockl, G. Rickert, E.D. Jurkheim, and others. Conceptions about a multitude of local civilizations began to develop.

At the third stage (XX century), ideas about history as a set of local civilizations began to dominate - socio-cultural systems generated by specific conditions of activity, the characteristics of people inhabiting a given region and interacting in a certain way with each other on the scale of world history (O. Spengler, A. Toynbee , P.A. Sorokin and others).

The analysis of the subjective motivations of activity associated with the worldview of various cultures began to play a large role. The explanatory principle of history, which prevailed at previous stages, was replaced by the hermeneutic principle (the principle of understanding). There is no trace of historical optimism, as they say. Researchers are frustrated with a rational approach to making sense of history.

The idea of ​​a world civilization is shifted to the periphery and is encountered only as a derivative of the interaction of different civilizations, but not as a model for their arrangement on the scale of progress. The monistic conception of history is finally replaced by a pluralistic one. Representatives of this stage - V. Dilthey, M. Weber, K. Jaspers, S.N. Eisenstadt, F. Bagby, M. Block, L. Febvre, F. Braudel and others.

The above diagram of the stages in the development of theories of civilization contains a rather curious logic. The connection between the first and second stages is inherent, for all their differences, a deep continuity. The moment of denial is partial. The connection between the second and third stages, on the other hand, is characterized by a deep break in continuity. Such a break in the continuity of development does not happen often in science. Probably, one should expect a return to the philosophy of history of the basic ideas of the first and second stages (the idea of ​​unity, the integrity of history, etc.), but, of course, in a different form.

The starting point in the civilizational approach is the concept of "civilization". What is it? In the opinion of some domestic researchers, civilization is the actual social organization of society (that is, different from the natural, tribal organization), which is characterized by a universal connection between individuals and primary communities in order to reproduce and increase social wealth.

According to others, civilization "is a set of relations between people of the same confession, as well as between the individual and the state, sacralized by a religious or ideological doctrine, which ensures stability and duration in historical time of the fundamental standards of individual and social behavior." However, almost any long-standing community can be defined this way (what is, for example, a Masonic lodge or the Sicilian mafia?).

In the opinion of others, civilization is "a community of people united by fundamental spiritual values ​​and ideals, which has stable special features in the socio-political organization, culture, economy and a psychological sense of belonging to this community." But it is important, while avoiding Marxist monism - a rigid attachment to the mode of production, not to lose sight of the danger of another monism - an equally rigid attachment to the spiritual, religious or psychological principle.

What, after all, should be understood by "civilization"? Taking into account the evolution of this concept, we can say that civilizations are large, long-term self-sufficient communities of countries and peoples, distinguished on a socio-cultural basis, the originality of which is ultimately determined by natural, objective living conditions, including the mode of production.

These communities in the process of their evolution go through (here we can agree with A. Toynbee) stages of emergence, formation, flourishing, breakdown and decomposition (death). The unity of world history appears as the coexistence of these communities in space and time, their interaction and interconnection.

The identification of these communities is, therefore, the first prerequisite for a civilizational approach to history in its modern understanding. The second prerequisite is the decoding of the socio-cultural code that ensures the existence and reproduction of communities, their originality and difference from each other.

The key concept here is culture in all its diversity. And here a lot already depends on what aspects of it are in the spotlight. Most often, the modern supporter of the civilizational approach comes to the fore with the spiritual culture rooted in the people, or mentality (mentality), understood in the narrow sense of the word, i.e. as hidden layers of social consciousness.

But there is no escaping the question: how and where did this socio-cultural code come from? Here, one cannot do without addressing the objective conditions of the community's existence. Objective conditions are natural ( natural environment), and anthropological, rooted in the prehistoric era, and social (the way people provided themselves with livelihoods, intercommunal influences, etc.) factors. Thus, the socio-cultural code is the result of the interaction of various factors.

The main thing here is the process of humanization, civilization, ennobling of the very subject of history, i.e. individual and genus homo sapiens.

Of course, history is not Nevsky Prospekt, not the freeway of human civilization. Initially, no one set goals. The very existence of people, their behavior and activities set in motion the mechanism of their civilization. With great difficulty they found ways and means to ennoble themselves.

They stumbled and fell, losing something of the acquired human traits, shedding the blood of their fellow human beings in internecine wars, sometimes losing all human form, dooming millions to death and suffering, poverty and hunger for the sake of well-being and progress of a few, for the sake of the latter's breakthrough to new horizons of culture and humanity in order to later pull up to these horizons with the whole mass. There have been breakouts and pullbacks. There were also dead-end directions. Whole peoples and countries disappeared.

But new peoples, new countries and states arose. The human life impulse did not dry out, but assuming new forms, it was filled with new energy. This is the real way of raising a person above his natural principle. The trend of progress makes its way through all the zigzags, breaks in history, through all the stupidity, mistakes, crimes of people. This has been the case, at least until now.

Thus, the essence of the civilizational approach to history is the disclosure of the essence of the historical process through the prism of the civilization of people within the framework of a particular community or all of humanity, in a particular period of time or throughout the history of people as a whole.