Suchergebnisse

I assert that methodological nationalism (national paradigm) is one of the main reasons of methodological inertia of the current historiography especially in the area of the post-communist European countries. In the current article I argue that comparative history could be a bridge between conventional (mainstream) historiography and approaches of so-called macrohistory. In this context typology should be treated as one of possible methods of comparative history. The most traditional approach of medievalists to articulate classification of pre-modern European societies is consider whether particular pre-modern society is feudal or not. However I argue that this approach is quite complicated because of ambiguity and polysemy of the term. There are at least several Marxist and non-Marxist alternatives like the tributary mode of production, patrimonialism versus feudalism dichotomy or the so-called type/model of early Central European state. The application of the concept of the African mode of production in the case of typology of some European pre-modern peripheral societies despite of its paradoxically looking etimology also is plausible. ; I assert that methodological nationalism (national paradigm) is one of the main reasons of methodological inertia of the current historiography especially in the area of the post-communist European countries. In the current article I argue that comparative history could be a bridge between conventional (mainstream) historiography and approaches of so-called macrohistory. In this context typology should be treated as one of possible methods of comparative history. The most traditional approach of medievalists to articulate classification of pre-modern European societies is consider whether particular pre-modern society is feudal or not. However I argue that this approach is quite complicated because of ambiguity and polysemy of the term. There are at least several Marxist and non-Marxist alternatives like the tributary mode of production, patrimonialism versus feudalism dichotomy or the so-called type/model of early Central European state. The application of the concept of the African mode of production in the case of typology of some European pre-modern peripheral societies despite of its paradoxically looking etimology also is plausible.

The most traditional approach of medievalists to articulate classification of pre-modern European societies is to consider whether particular pre-modern society is feudal or not. However I argue that this approach is quite complicated because of ambiguity and polysemy of the term. There are at least several Marxist and non-Marxist alternatives instead. Transcending the horizon of debates about feudalism proposes more creative possibilities and enlarges analytical capacities. Although discussion about the notorious Asiatic mode of production seems obsolete nevertheless there are other more promising and up-to-date concepts like the tributary mode of production, patrimonialism versus feudalism dichotomy or the so-called type/model of early Central European state (the system of Ius Ducale). The application of the concept of the African mode of production in the case of typology of some European pre-modern peripheral societies despite of its astonishing etymology also is plausible. Another perspective way of elaboration comparative researches of pre-modern European peripheries is combining Marxist and non-Marxist concepts (like patrimonialism and the tributary mode of production, for example). I would also like to emphasize that in some cases in order to develop adequate typological concepts the combining of evaluation of internal (evolving of socioeconomic structures) as well as estimation of external impact is inevitable.

The most traditional approach of medievalists to articulate classification of pre-modern European societies is to consider whether particular pre-modern society is feudal or not. However I argue that this approach is quite complicated because of ambiguity and polysemy of the term. There are at least several Marxist and non-Marxist alternatives instead. Transcending the horizon of debates about feudalism proposes more creative possibilities and enlarges analytical capacities. Although discussion about the notorious Asiatic mode of production seems obsolete nevertheless there are other more promising and up-to-date concepts like the tributary mode of production, patrimonialism versus feudalism dichotomy or the so-called type/model of early Central European state (the system of Ius Ducale). The application of the concept of the African mode of production in the case of typology of some European pre-modern peripheral societies despite of its astonishing etimology also is plausible. Another perspective way of elaboration comparative researches of pre-modern European peripheries is combining Marxist and non-Marxist concepts (like patrimonialism and the tributary mode of production, for example). I would also like to emphasize that in some cases in order to develop adequate typological concepts the combining of evaluation of internal (evolving of socioeconomic structures) as well as estimation of external impact is inevitable.

The most traditional approach of medievalists to articulate classification of pre-modern European societies is to consider whether particular pre-modern society is feudal or not. However I argue that this approach is quite complicated because of ambiguity and polysemy of the term. There are at least several Marxist and non-Marxist alternatives instead. Transcending the horizon of debates about feudalism proposes more creative possibilities and enlarges analytical capacities. Although discussion about the notorious Asiatic mode of production seems obsolete nevertheless there are other more promising and up-to-date concepts like the tributary mode of production, patrimonialism versus feudalism dichotomy or the so-called type/model of early Central European state (the system of Ius Ducale). The application of the concept of the African mode of production in the case of typology of some European pre-modern peripheral societies despite of its astonishing etimology also is plausible. Another perspective way of elaboration comparative researches of pre-modern European peripheries is combining Marxist and non-Marxist concepts (like patrimonialism and the tributary mode of production, for example). I would also like to emphasize that in some cases in order to develop adequate typological concepts the combining of evaluation of internal (evolving of socioeconomic structures) as well as estimation of external impact is inevitable.

The most traditional approach of medievalists to articulate classification of pre-modern European societies is to consider whether particular pre-modern society is feudal or not. However I argue that this approach is quite complicated because of ambiguity and polysemy of the term. There are at least several Marxist and non-Marxist alternatives instead. Transcending the horizon of debates about feudalism proposes more creative possibilities and enlarges analytical capacities. Although discussion about the notorious Asiatic mode of production seems obsolete nevertheless there are other more promising and up-to-date concepts like the tributary mode of production, patrimonialism versus feudalism dichotomy or the so-called type/model of early Central European state (the system of Ius Ducale). The application of the concept of the African mode of production in the case of typology of some European pre-modern peripheral societies despite of its astonishing etimology also is plausible. Another perspective way of elaboration comparative researches of pre-modern European peripheries is combining Marxist and non-Marxist concepts (like patrimonialism and the tributary mode of production, for example). I would also like to emphasize that in some cases in order to develop adequate typological concepts the combining of evaluation of internal (evolving of socioeconomic structures) as well as estimation of external impact is inevitable.

This paper desires to draw attention to some stereotypes that simplify perception of historical reality, but nevertheless still prevail in historiography. There is a very common statement about the so-called second edition of serfdom (based on manorial-serve economy) that spread all around the Eastern Europe region in the 16th century. This turn in social development is usually explained as determined by internal as well as external factors. If the problem considered is placed under Marxist views, one can distinguish two extreme poles: traditional Marxism and world-system approach. Supporters of traditional Marxism emphasize internal factors while adherents of world-system attitude accentuate external factors. The author argues that the regime of serfdom established in Moldova until 1600 is not consistent with the classic model. In this case, one can talk only about another type of second serfdom that differs from that of Eastern Germany as well as from Central Europe. It would be also a gross simplification to claim that second serfdom phenomenon was caused exclusively by external reasons. Internal causes are not less but probably even more decisive, at least in some cases. As the work of Darius Žiemelis has showed recently, statements of world-system approach toward certain societies are worth of critical reconsideration.

The Romanian school of sociology founded by Dimitrie Gusti was a favorable medium for elaborating theoretic ideas. The school became a cradle for at least two prominent theoreticians (Henri H. Stahl and Traian Herseni) whose conceptions are worth of attention not only from sociologists but for the theoretically minded historians, too. We should keep in our mind that according to the methodological attitudes of the Bucharest school field researches were highly encouraged. It means that any generalizations, theoretic suggestions or entire conceptions produced by the followers of Gusti were solidly based on empirical data. Stahl started to elaborate his conception of tributalism in the 1960s. Coincidently, at this period the international discussion about the so-called Asiatic mode of production revived so the Stahl's theoretic ideas were well-timed. Stahl was not the only Romanian scholar who got involved in the discussion, but his conception was more original: according to him, tributalism should be treated as something different from Oriental despotism although there were some obvious similarities between the two. Despite the fact that the majority of Romanian historian community ignored the Stahl's innovative conception, there were some attempts in Romania as well as abroad to elaborate (Daniel Chirot) or at least to popularize (Miron Constantinescu, Constantin Daniel) his ideas.

By this article the author wants to revive the discussion about Marxist schemas of social development and their applicability for constructing models of universal history. The viewpoints of three scholars are presented in the current text: Samir Amin's who is known in the Western historiographical tradition as the main creator and promoter of the concept of tributary mode of production, John Haldon's who has paid much attention to the above-mentioned concept and has dedicated an entire book to this issue, Henri H. Stahl's who created an original alternative approach to the issue of tributalism. The author rejects J. Haldon's concept of "mode of production" as being too narrow. In fact J. Haldon identifies the mode of production with the mode of exploitation. The author proposes a wider definition of the mode of production which is based on the analysis of Karl Marx's texts. According to the author, the most important elements of mode of production are exploitative subject (it is defined by property of conditions of production, which realises as the social power) and productive/obligatory unit which can be manifested as a household of an individual direct producer or as a community. The author proposes the following classification based on his conception of a mode of production: 1. A proprietor of land is a monarch/state and the productive/obligatory unit is the community (of Asiatic/Slavonic type); 2. A proprietor of land is a monarch/state and the productive/obligatory unit is the household of an individual direct producer; 3. Proprietors of land are private landowners and the productive/obligatory unit is the community (of Asiatic/Slavonic type); 4. Proprietors of land are private landowners and the productive/obligatory unit is the household of an individual direct producer. The most important conclusions of the author's are as follows: 1. H. H. Stahl's statement that there were alternatives in the social development of precapitalist societies are definitely reasonable. 2. Keeping in his mind the controversies between the conceptions of tributalism the author emphasizes that for the moment the question of the typology of antagonistic precapitalist societies remains open; so further researches and discussions are necessary. 3. As a point of departure for further researches and discussions the author proposes his classification of antagonistic precapitalist societies based on the criteria of an exploitative subject and a productive/obligatory unit.

I assert that methodological nationalism (national paradigm) is one of the main reasons of methodological inertia of the current historiography especially in the area of the post-communist European countries. In the current article I argue that comparative history could be a bridge between conventional (mainstream) historiography and approaches of so-called macrohistory. In this context typology should be treated as one of possible methods of comparative history. The most traditional approach of medievalists to articulate classification of pre-modern European societies is consider whether particular pre-modern society is feudal or not. However I argue that this approach is quite complicated because of ambiguity and polysemy of the term. There are at least several Marxist and non-Marxist alternatives like the tributary mode of production, patrimonialism versus feudalism dichotomy or the so-called type/model of early Central European state. The application of the concept of the African mode of production in the case of typology of some European pre-modern peripheral societies despite of its paradoxically looking etimology also is plausible.