THE CONTRIBUTION OF UKRAINIAN EMIGRATION OF THE INTERWAR PERIOD TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH: THEMATIC, METHODOLOGICAL AND CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS

V. Potulnytskyi
{"title":"THE CONTRIBUTION OF UKRAINIAN EMIGRATION OF THE INTERWAR PERIOD TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HISTORICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH: THEMATIC, METHODOLOGICAL AND CONCEPTUAL ASPECTS","authors":"V. Potulnytskyi","doi":"10.25264/2409-6806-2020-31-98-107","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article reconstructs the contribution to historical science shaped by leading Ukrainian scholars and political thinkers during the period in question. Through applying Karl Mannheim’s vision of “real generations” of intellectuals, on the one hand, and his definitions of parameters of real contribution as well as role of specialisation in the framework of evaluation of this contribution, on the other hand, the author defines two generations of historians, successful in their scientific discourse. Having analysed a range of original works by Ukrainian emigrants of older generation (Hrushevskyi, Lypynskyi, Tomashivskyi, Doroshenko), as well as the representatives of the younger generation (Krupnyckyi, Kutshabskyi, Antonovych and Chyzevskyi), the author recreates the research heritage and vision of Ukrainian and European history in its internal dialectics that were formed by scholars in the interwar intellectual environment in Germany, Czechoslovakia and Austria. In addition to the identical conclusions of each author concerning the statements about the necessity and possibility to integrate the Ukrainian history into the global one, discussion of the Ukrainian question in isolation to the resolution of the Russian problem, and existence of common political language of both generations of intellectuals as emigrants in their host countries, the author formulates existing differences. The latter depends, first and foremost, on the different positions of scholars in foreign institutions: the older generation possessed the academic positions in the institutions created by emigrants; the younger – in state German, Czechoslovak or Austrian institutions. Second difference specified the specific character of intellectual concentration of the authors under discussion: speaking in terms of the understanding the experience of the failure of Ukrainian state in 1917-1920s, older scholars differed considerably from their younger colleagues, who predetermined the methodology and tasks of their research, corresponding to European countries. Third difference depends on the results of research: older researchers aimed to make contribution only to Ukrainian history; younger scholars conducted various retrospective journeys into the different aspects of medieval and new history of Germany, Poland, Austria and Czechoslovakia. All Ukrainian intellectuals, whose legacy is prioritized and studied in the article, were concentrated on the research of the phenomenon of Ukrainian history as historical and political reality. The divergence between two different generations of Ukrainian émigré scholars lied in different significance of their contribution into the Ukrainian historical science and absence of the contribution into the global science for older scholars, different arguments put forward by Ukrainian intellectuals to support their concepts, as well as in the surroundings and circumstances of their education and research work as scholars.","PeriodicalId":229424,"journal":{"name":"Naukovì zapiski Nacìonalʹnogo unìversitetu \"Ostrozʹka akademìâ\". Serìâ Ìstoričnì nauki","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Naukovì zapiski Nacìonalʹnogo unìversitetu \"Ostrozʹka akademìâ\". Serìâ Ìstoričnì nauki","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25264/2409-6806-2020-31-98-107","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The article reconstructs the contribution to historical science shaped by leading Ukrainian scholars and political thinkers during the period in question. Through applying Karl Mannheim’s vision of “real generations” of intellectuals, on the one hand, and his definitions of parameters of real contribution as well as role of specialisation in the framework of evaluation of this contribution, on the other hand, the author defines two generations of historians, successful in their scientific discourse. Having analysed a range of original works by Ukrainian emigrants of older generation (Hrushevskyi, Lypynskyi, Tomashivskyi, Doroshenko), as well as the representatives of the younger generation (Krupnyckyi, Kutshabskyi, Antonovych and Chyzevskyi), the author recreates the research heritage and vision of Ukrainian and European history in its internal dialectics that were formed by scholars in the interwar intellectual environment in Germany, Czechoslovakia and Austria. In addition to the identical conclusions of each author concerning the statements about the necessity and possibility to integrate the Ukrainian history into the global one, discussion of the Ukrainian question in isolation to the resolution of the Russian problem, and existence of common political language of both generations of intellectuals as emigrants in their host countries, the author formulates existing differences. The latter depends, first and foremost, on the different positions of scholars in foreign institutions: the older generation possessed the academic positions in the institutions created by emigrants; the younger – in state German, Czechoslovak or Austrian institutions. Second difference specified the specific character of intellectual concentration of the authors under discussion: speaking in terms of the understanding the experience of the failure of Ukrainian state in 1917-1920s, older scholars differed considerably from their younger colleagues, who predetermined the methodology and tasks of their research, corresponding to European countries. Third difference depends on the results of research: older researchers aimed to make contribution only to Ukrainian history; younger scholars conducted various retrospective journeys into the different aspects of medieval and new history of Germany, Poland, Austria and Czechoslovakia. All Ukrainian intellectuals, whose legacy is prioritized and studied in the article, were concentrated on the research of the phenomenon of Ukrainian history as historical and political reality. The divergence between two different generations of Ukrainian émigré scholars lied in different significance of their contribution into the Ukrainian historical science and absence of the contribution into the global science for older scholars, different arguments put forward by Ukrainian intellectuals to support their concepts, as well as in the surroundings and circumstances of their education and research work as scholars.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两次世界大战期间乌克兰移民对历史科学研究发展的贡献:主题、方法和概念方面
这篇文章重建了乌克兰主要学者和政治思想家在这一时期对历史科学的贡献。一方面,通过运用卡尔·曼海姆对知识分子“真实世代”的看法,以及他对真实贡献参数的定义,以及在评估这一贡献的框架中专业化的作用,另一方面,作者定义了两代在科学话语中取得成功的历史学家。作者分析了老一辈乌克兰移民(赫鲁晓夫斯基、利平斯基、托马希夫斯基、多罗申科)以及年轻一代的代表人物(克鲁普尼奇、库沙布斯基、安东诺维奇和契泽夫斯基)的一系列原创作品,在其内部辩证法中再现了两次世界大战之间德国、捷克斯洛伐克和奥地利的学者们形成的乌克兰和欧洲历史的研究遗产和视野。除了两位作者关于将乌克兰历史纳入全球历史的必要性和可能性、孤立地讨论乌克兰问题以解决俄罗斯问题、两代知识分子作为移民在其东道国存在共同政治语言的说法的相同结论之外,作者还阐述了存在的分歧。后者首先取决于学者在外国机构中的不同地位:老一代在移民创建的机构中拥有学术地位;较年轻的是德国、捷克斯洛伐克或奥地利的机构。第二个差异说明了所讨论的作者的知识集中的具体特征:就对1917-1920年代乌克兰国家失败经验的理解而言,年长的学者与他们的年轻同事有很大的不同,他们预先确定了他们的研究方法和任务,与欧洲国家相对应。第三个差异取决于研究的结果:年长的研究人员只希望对乌克兰历史做出贡献;年轻的学者们对德国、波兰、奥地利和捷克斯洛伐克的中世纪和新历史的不同方面进行了各种回顾之旅。所有乌克兰知识分子,其遗产在文章中被优先考虑和研究,都集中在乌克兰历史现象作为历史和政治现实的研究上。乌克兰两代学者的差异主要表现在对乌克兰历史科学贡献的意义不同,而老一辈学者对全球科学贡献的缺失;乌克兰知识分子支持其观念的论点不同;以及他们作为学者的教育和研究工作的环境和环境。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
PRIMARY COLLECTION REGISTERS OF THE ESTATES OF PRINCE V.-K. OF OSTROH 1577 MILITARY HISTORICAL WORK IN CAMPS FOR INTERNED SOLDIERS OF THE UPR ARMY: CONTEMPORARY NATIONWIDE HISTORIOGRAPHY CULTURAL DIPLOMACY OF THE UKRAINIAN WORLD CONGRESS AS A FACTOR OF PROMOTING OF UKRAINE IN THE WORLD (2014–22) ACTIVITIES OF «PROSVITA» COMPANY IN VYSOKA PICH VILLAGE OF ZHYTOMYR REGION IN 1920 ORAL HISTORICAL TESTIMONY AND MEMORIES AS A SOURCE FOR THE STUDY OF THE RUSSIAN-UKRAINIAN WAR: METHODOLOGICAL AND LEGAL BASIS
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1