Suchergebnisse

The article deals with the conception of the future as a subject of ethnology and social anthropology. This conception is a part of historical perception of the past, the present and the future, providing guidance to a society on the orientation in time and space. That's why the future may and should be of research interest to ethnology. It should examine this phenomenon not only in respect of folk culture but also regarding professional forms of reflection such as science, politics, ideology and art. It is necessary to study mechanisms, channels and outcome of influence of all forms of reflection about the future. Together they are a significant factor in ethnic and civic identification. Globalization and growing interaction among peoples and cultures are provoking more and more attempts to impose ideas about society prospects as means of influencing the present under a certain political and ideological pressure. ; В статье рассматривается феномен представлений о будущем в качестве объекта исследования в этнологии и социальной антропологии. Эти представления есть часть исторического сознания, объединяющего три проекции времени (прошлое, настоящее, будущее), некая «лоция» для ориентации общества во времени и пространстве. Поэтому будущее может и должно быть в сфере исследовательских интересов этнологии, включая изучение как массовых народных представлений о нем, так и профессионализированные варианты рефлексии (науку, политику, идеологию, искусство). Необходимо изучение механизмов, каналов и результатов воздействия на общество и специализированных, и стихийных форм рефлексии о будущем: вместе они важный фактор этнической и гражданской идентификации. В условиях глобализации на фоне роста взаимодействия народов и культур значительно возросло навязывание обществу представлений о его перспективах как некое средство воздействия на настоящее под определенным политико-идеологическим прессом.

The subject of the research is the historiographical situation in the ethnology of the early Soviet period and its dynamics caused by a radically changing political and ideological context. The basic characteristics of ethnology in the 1920s. were theoretical and methodological pluralism with the paradoxical absence of the Marxist direction, as well as high dynamics of theoretical discourse. The discussion on the methodological issues of ethnology that took place at the turn of the 1920s and 1930s. became a natural development of the historiographical situation and at the same time a critical milestone in the development of ethnology. Young intellectuals, who can be called "Marxists", and their informal leader V.B. Aptekar' initiated a theoretical discussion, determined its character and direction: Marxism as the "only correct" scientific method was opposed to the conceptual constructs of "bourgeois" ethnology. However, the transfer of ethnography to the "Marxist rails" almost led to the abolition of the scientific discipline itself. The article reconstructs the context, course and content of the discussion; it considers different variants of Marxism, proposed by both "bourgeois" specialists and young humanities scholars; it also analyzes strategies for promoting intellectual positions. As a result the dogmatic understanding of Marxism prevailed, the discussion was forcibly stopped, fundamental theoretical issues were disavowed, and ethnography was reduced to the status of auxiliary scientific discipline. ; Предмет исследования – историографическая ситуация в этнологии раннесоветского периода и ее динамика, вызванная радикально менявшимся политическим и идеологическим контекстом. Базовыми характеристиками состояния этнологии в 1920-х гг. являлись теоретико-методологический плюрализм при парадоксальном отсутствии марксистского направления, а также высокая динамика теоретического дискурса. Дискуссия по методологическим вопросам этнологии, происходившая на рубеже 1920-1930-х гг. стала естественным развитием историографической ситуации и одновременно критическим рубежом в развитии этнологии. Молодые интеллектуалы, которых условно можно называть «марксистами», и их неформальный лидер В.Б. Аптекарь инициировали теоретическую дискуссию, определили ее характер и направление: марксизм как «единственно верный» научный метод был противопоставлен концептуальным построениям «буржуазной» этнологии. Однако перевод этнографии на «марксистские рельсы» едва не привел к упразднению самой научной дисциплины. В статье реконструируются контекст, ход и содержание дискуссии; рассматриваются разные варианты марксизма, предлагавшиеся как «буржуазными» специалистами, так и молодыми гуманитариями; анализируются стратегии продвижения интеллектуальных позиций. В результате возобладало догматическое понимание марксизма, дискуссия была насильственно прекращена, принципиальные теоретические вопросы дезавуированы, а этнография сведена до статуса вспомогательной научной дисциплины.

The article is a tribute of respect to the memory of Gennady Evgenyevich Markov, a major Russian ethnologist, archaeologist and historian of primitive society, doctor in history, professor of the Department of Ethnology, Faculty of History, Lomonosov Moscow State University. The authors provide a detailed analysis of the scientific contribution and life path of the outstanding Soviet/Russian scholar and place their narrative in a broad socio-cultural and intellectual context of the country and society. G.E. Markov's biography is closely connected with the history of the Department of Ethnography/Ethnology at the Faculty of History, Moscow State University and serves as a serious basis for reconstructing the genesis of university ethnography and its dynamics over the course of nearly 85 years. Such a long period of existence of the university department and its sustainable effectiveness in training professional staff were essentially ensured by the high qualification of scientific and pedagogical staff, reliance on solid theoretical and methodological foundations and interdisciplinarity, a combination of conservatism with flexibility and adaptability to the challenges of the time, the ability to preserve disciplinary continuity and ensure the transmission of the scholarly tradition. All these components of the successful development of university ethnology are subjected to a comprehensive and balanced examination in the article. G.E. Markov's biography in all its typical and special manifestations forms the semantic core of the analysis and presentation. The authors offer their view on complex and sharply debatable issues of professional self-determination, the logic of scientific discovery, the correlation between field and desk research, the influence of ideology and politics on scientific thought. The article presents the authors' vision of the prospects for the development of the Department of Ethnology, based on a harmonious combination of ethnological and anthropological approaches to understanding the disciplinary framework, unconditional reliance on scholarly tradition and its authorities, the need to improve the methods of training in terms of instrumentality and practice-oriented nature, which will allow graduates of the department to be in demand and stay in the profession.

LC copy has the blind stamp of G.V. Yudin on p. 13 (v. 1); acquired in 1907 (accession no. 104837 '07). ; Volume 2 consists of 10 appendices containing tables on Manchurian climate, plant life (Latin terms) and animal life (Latin and Russian), military and civil administration, demographics, roads (names of stations in Chinese characters), geography, trade, weights and measures; bibliography (English, French, German, Russian) and index. Some tables in double columns. ; Volume 1 discusses Manchurian history, geography, geology, climate and biology, population and ethnology, government, demography, roads and inns, industry and trade. Folded map at end. ; Includes bibliographical references and index. ; Mode of access: Internet.