Present events and the representation of the past [Some current problems in Russian historical writing*]
Some current problems in Russian historical writing
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12502016 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Michael Confino (corresponding author) |
| Year | 1994 |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue | 4 |
| Pages | 839-868 |
| Publication date | 1994-01-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Cahiers du monde russe (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1252-6576 • E-ISSN: 1777-5388 |
| Publisher | PERSEE Program (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.3406/cmr.1994.2411 |
| OpenAlex | W2088679212 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
Michael Confino, Present events and the representation of the past. Some current problems in Russian historical writing. Historical writing is probably not just a re-enactment of the present by other means. Nevertheless, there is something of it in all historical writing. For that reason the real questions are : to what extent do current events influence the historian's work, and is he or she sufficiently aware of this influence and its by-products ? The recent developments in Russia have had a profound effect on Soviet/Russian historical writing, and a devastating one on Western Sovietology. But they have also put on the agenda of Western historiography new questions, or given an acute topicality to old ones. Is this new turn justified by the organic development of the discipline ? Is it a "paradigmatic revolution" of sorts ? Or does it reflect rather some inadequacies in traditional historiography during the last thirty years or so ? Inadequacies such as deterministic and teleological approaches inspired by the "1917 paradigm" ? In turn, these approaches have generated an hypertrophy of phenomena such as the crisis of the Old Regime, revolutionary processes, and social instability. For how, indeed, could "1917" have happened without such kind of overwhelming phenomena ? But as is well known, historical logic does not always follow the logic of the common sense. What have we learnt (about the present as well as about the past) from the recurrent and pervading ase of historical analogies as, for instance, between Gorbachev and Alexander I, or Yeltsin and Kerenski ? Do we need the constant evocation of reforms (failed or successful) in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in order to gauge the chances of success of the reforms in today's Russia ? Is Russian history repeating itself, or is there something atavistic in its course ? And is it the historian's task to predict the future instead of explaining the past ? Are these new problems a symptom of the discipline's growth and maturity ? Or rather non-issues indicating a malaise and perhaps a crisis
Archaeology · Art · Economic history · Epistemology · Historiography · Literature · Political science · Politics · Representation (politics · Russian history · Sociology · Teleology · History · Law · Philosophy · Soviet and Russian History
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,1 |
| Citation span | 1996 - 2009 (14) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 3 |