To the Question on Paradigms in Historiography (for one Discussion)

Abstract. The focus of the article is the problem of two paradigms existence in contemporary Russian historiography. The analysis of the theoretical grounds of anthropological and conceptualist paradigms was proposed in the discussion by S.B. Krich and O.V. Metel. According to their conception, the anthropological paradigm focuses on the study of communications of a historian, on his daily life. And in accordance with the conceptualist paradigm the focus is the product of research creativity of a scientist, his scientific ideas. However, in our opinion, a scientific idea can be productively studied in conjunction with a socio-cultural context and biography of the author. We clarify that the use of the word “paradigm” suggests the incompatibility of knowledge, isolation, and the role of a social element. So it is concluded that these models belong to the same paradigm, because their research tools are combined in the same study. It is necessary to search a stricter paradigmatic basis. Separation between the paradigms seems to be located in the questions about objective reality and the nature of scientific knowledge. Currently, two paradigms exist. And the fundamental difference between them is proposed to be sought on the verge of the positivists and post-positivists, classical and non-classical views.

Keywords: historiography, paradigm, new history ideas, intellectual history, constructivism, postpositivism, non-classical science.