Борисов Г.И. Преодолевая травму. Язык научных споров отечественных медиевистов конца 1980 — начала 1990‐х гг. между прошлым и настоящим [Электронный ресурс] // Vox medii aevi. 2024. Vol. 1. С. 106–129. URL: https://voxmediiaevi.com/2024-1-borisov/
DOI: 10.24412/2587-6619-2024-1-106-129
Борисов Григорий Игоревич
Кандидат исторических наук, научный сотрудник Центра перспективных исследований «Миграция и мобильность в поздней античности и раннем средневековье», Тюбингенский университет (г. Тюбинген).
grigorijborisov@gmail.com
Преодолевая травму. Язык научных споров отечественных медиевистов конца 1980‐х — начала 1990‐х гг. между прошлым и настоящим
Целью статьи является рассмотрение под углом trauma studies научной коммуникации среди поздне- и постсоветских медиевистов, ограниченное спором о чертах советской историографии, состоявшегося в 1990 г. В центре исследования этой статьи находятся приемы и средства полемики, использовавшиеся дискутантами, сформировавшиеся — в каждом случае индивидуально — под воздействием страхов и травм от партийных «проработок» а также особого отношения советской историографии к парадигмам науки XIX в. В статье выдвигается рабочая гипотеза, что способы аргументации, даже у самых критически настроенных к советской исторической науке медиевистов межвоенных поколений, нередко воспроизводят приемы публичной полемики советской историографии 1940‐х — 1980‐х гг.
Ключевые слова: история науки; историческая травма; научная коммуникация; постсоветская медиевистика; советская медиевистика.
Grigorii Borisov
Fellow in Center for Advanced Studies 2496 ‘Migration and Mobility in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages’, University of Tübingen
grigorijborisov@gmail.com
Working through the trauma. The language of scholarly communication by Russian medievalists in the late 1980s and early 1990s between past and present
The article examines, from the perspective of trauma studies, scholarly communication among late- and post-Soviet medievalists, limited here to the material of a single discussion that took place in 1990. The division of Soviet medieval studies into ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’, realised by the early Brezhnev era and which triggered the ‘war of memoirs’ in the post-Soviet era, has had a significant impact on the communication of historians and could be still visible today. The thesis taken as a starting point of the study is that the main debates in the discussion being studied were conducted by historians of the interwar generations, shaped by the specific scholar’s communication accepted in the humanities in the USSR from the late 1940s to the 1980s. The research case of scholarly communication is taken from a historian’s dispute about the features of Soviet historiography that took place in the Institute of World history of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow in 1990. The deconstruction of the language of late Soviet scholarly communication in this aspect involves an analysis of the fears, traumas, and particular attitudes to the paradigms of nineteenth century science and to argumentum ad veritatem, caused by pressure from the authorities through public ‘slatings’ during the late 1940s to the mid-1980s. In such an analysis, however, it is methodologically incorrect to deny the disputants their individuality.
This article proposes the hypothesis that the modes of argumentation of late Soviet historians, even the most critical to Soviet history studies, were closely linked to the modes of public polemics in Soviet historiography from the late 1940s to the mid-1980s. To a large extent these modes were aimed at creating binary oppositions and at unmasking the opponent. In the light of recent research on trauma in intellectual history, such modes of argumentation and polemics do not mitigate or serve to work through the traumas of scholarly communication received in ideologically repressed humanities, but at best neutralise them and, reproducing late Soviet means of polemic, block public mourning for historians who have been subjected to political repression.
Keywords: History of science; historical trauma; academic communication; Soviet medieval studies; post-Soviet medieval studies.