The Phenomenon of Property in Metaphysical Characteristics of History and the Medieval World
Table of contents
Share
Metrics
The Phenomenon of Property in Metaphysical Characteristics of History and the Medieval World
Annotation
PII
S207987840002002-1-1
DOI
10.18254/S0002002-1-2
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Nina Khachaturyan 
Affiliation: Lomonosov Moscow State University
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Abstract
The article analyzes the social structure of the Middle Ages (mainly using the West European region as an example) in the context of metaphysics throughout the history and the achievements of historical knowledge of the 20th — 21st centuries which have radically enriched the historical methods and tools of research. The possibility of a revised interpretation of how social development functions and how it is affected and shaped by the potential of society allowed for the reevaluation of the role of consciousness in history and helped to clarify the relationship between the physical and the metaphysical over the years. These accomplishments liberated the ideas of comprehensive and systemic development from their mechanistic explanation thanks to their emphasis on the variability and complexity of historical development. They also allowed the possibility of the outpacing effect of each aspect (economic — social — political — moral) while retaining their inner connections. Finally, they excluded the principle of the hierarchy among different sides of historical development, which in its most simplistic iteration gave rise to the basis and superstructure dichotomy. The peculiarities of how the main form of property in the agrarian world — land — functioned convincingly affirm not only the fixed bond between its four features but a direct and forced inner dependency between two of them: the economic mechanism of the structure (the land owner and the dependent peasant with the right to own the instruments of labor) “could not operate” without direct political coercion (so-called “noneconomic coercion”). The article underscores the unique significance of small-scale production in villages and cities (where instruments of labor were owned by manufacturers, despite their social dependence). The author believes that this specific feature explains the exceptional role of the medieval social structure in laying ground for the new — industrial — stage in the history of human civilization. The economic significance of small-scale manufacturers, their relatively early emancipation from personal dependency, and their participation in the process of corporate selfidentification, which took institutionalized and legal forms in Western Europe, fundamentally broadened the boundaries of Medieval involvement in society, which had been previously limited by its economic and political elite (“the nobility”). Medieval parliamentarism became the most convincing sign of the prehistory of the “civil” society and the parliaments of Modernity.
Keywords
temporal rhythms, longue durée, social structure, pre-industrial period, agrarian world, land property, fief, small production, instrument of labor, peasant, artisan labor, particularism, corporatism, self-identification
Received
04.08.2017
Publication date
14.09.2017
Number of characters
29715
Number of purchasers
26
Views
3609
Readers community rating
5.0 (1 votes)
Cite Download pdf 100 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should sign in

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article
100 RUB / 1.0 SU
Whole issue
1000 RUB / 10.0 SU
All issues for 2017
5000 RUB / 50.0 SU

References



Additional sources and materials

  1. Gurevich A. Ya. Agrarnyj stroj varvarov // Istoriya krest'yanstva v Evrope. T. 1. Ehpokha feodalizma. M., 1985. S. 90—136.
  2. Dyurkgejm Eh. O razdelenii obschestvennogo truda. M., 1996.
  3. Dyurkgejm Eh. Sotsiologiya. M., 2006.
  4. Neusykhin A. I. Vozniknovenie zavisimogo krest'yanstva kak klassa rannefeodal'nogo obschestva v Zapadnoj Evrope. M., 1956.
  5. Neusykhin A. I. Ehvolyutsiya obschestvennogo stroya varvarov ot rannikh form obschiny k vozniknoveniyu individual'nogo khozyajstva // Istoriya krest'yanstva v Evrope. T. 1. Ehpokha feodalizma. M., 1985. S. 137—176.
  6. Khachaturyan N. A. Velikaya khartiya vol'nostej. Dokument i znaki vremeni v kontekste istoriopisaniya // Srednie veka. 2016. Vyp. 77 (1-2). S. 49—61.
  7. Khachaturyan N. A. Vlast' i obschestvo v Zapadnoj Evrope v srednie veka. M., 2008.
  8. Ehksle O. G. Dejstvitel'nost' i znanie. Ocherki sotsial'noj istorii srednevekov'ya. M., 2007.
  9. Berr A. La synthèse en histoire, essai critique et thèorique. Paris, 1953.
  10. Bloch M. Apologie pour l’Histoire ou Metier d’Historien. Paris, 1956.
  11. Bloch M. La societé féodale. Paris, 1991.
  12. Braudel F. Écrits sur l’histoire. Paris, 1969.
  13. Braudel F. Histoire et sciences sociales. La longue durée // Annales E.S.C. 1958. № 4.
  14. Duby G. Qu’est que la societé féodale? Paris, 2002.
  15. Febre L. Combats pour l’histoire. Paris, 1953.
  16. Guerrau A. La féodalisme: un horizon historique. Paris, 1978.
  17. Institutes coutumières d’Antoine Loysel. (1606, 1637) / nouvelle édition par J. Dupin et Édouard Lefebvre de Laboulaye. T. I—II. Paris, 1846.
  18. Lardreau G., Duby G. Dialogues. Paris, 1980.
  19. Lousse E. Les caractéres essentiels de l’État corporatif du Moyen Age à la fin de l’Ancien Régime // Bulletin of the International Committee of Historical Sciences. 1937. IX. № 37.