Od feudalizmu do afrykańskiego sposobu produkcji. Problem typologii przednowoczesnych peryferyjnych społeczeństw europejskich

Main Article Content

Nerijus Babinskas

Abstrakt

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.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

Jak cytować
Babinskas, N. (1). Od feudalizmu do afrykańskiego sposobu produkcji. Problem typologii przednowoczesnych peryferyjnych społeczeństw europejskich. Człowiek I Społeczeństwo, 42, 119-133. https://doi.org/10.14746/cis.2016.42.7
Dział
ARTYKUŁY

Referencje

  1. Алимов Д., Африканский способ производства» в Великой Моравии? (Заметки на полях статьи Иво Штефана), „Петербургские славянские и балканские исследования” 1 (11)/2012.
  2. Amin S., Modes of Production and Social Formations, „Ufahamu. A Journal of African Studies” 4 (3)/1974.
  3. Anderson P., Lineages of the Absolutist State, Verso, London and New York 1979.
  4. Armitage D., Guldi J., The History Manifesto, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2014.
  5. Babinskas N., The Concept of Tributalism: A Comparative Analysis of S. Amin, J. Haldon and H. H. Stahl’s Approaches, „Revista Română de studii Baltice şi Nordice” 1/2009.
  6. Babinskas N., Patrimonializmas: lenkiškoji sąvokos vartosenos tradicija ir jos santykis su M. Weberio samprata, „Lietuvos istorijos studijos” t. 30, 2012.
  7. Bailey A. M., Llobera J. R. (red.), The Asiatic Mode of Production. Science and Politics, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London – Boston – Henley 1981.
  8. Baldwin P., Comparing and Generalizing: Why All History Is Comparative, Yet No History Is Sociology, w: D. Cohen, M. O’Connor (red.), Comparison and History. Europe in Cross-national Perspective, Routledge, New York – London 2004.
  9. Banaji J., Theory as History. Essays on Modes of Production and Exploitation, Brill, Leiden – Boston 2010.
  10. Banu I., Asupra formaţiunii sociale tributare („asiatice”), w: I. Banu, Sensuri universale şi diferenţe specifice în filozofia Orientului Antic, Bucureşti, t. 1, 1967.
  11. Bratkiewicz J., Teoria przedkapitalistycznej fromacji społecznej w kulturach orientalnych. Interpretacja badań i polemik, PAN, Wrocław – Warszawa 1989.
  12. Brzechczyn K., Odrębność historyczna Europy Środkowej. Studium metodologiczne, Humaniora, Poznań 1998.
  13. Chirot D., Social Change in a Peripheral Society: the Creation of a Balkan Colony, Academic Press, New York – San Francisco – London 1976.
  14. Constantinescu M., Modul de producţie tributal şi orînduirea tributalǎ, „Probleme economice” 11/1972.
  15. Constantinescu M., Despre formaţiunea social-economicǎ tributalǎ, „Probleme economice” 4/1973.
  16. Constantinescu M., Schiţa unei teorii marxiste a formaţiunii social-economice tributale, Bucureşti 1974.
  17. Coquery-Vidrovitch С., Research on an African mode of production, w: P. Gudkind, P. Waterman (red), African Studies. A Radical Reader, Monthly Review Press, New York and London 1977.
  18. Daniel C., Modul de producţie tributal în Sumer, w: idem, Civilizaţia sumeriana, Editura Sport-Turism, Bucureşti 1983.
  19. Eisenstadt S. N., Traditional Patrimonialism and Modern Neopatrimonialism, Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, London 1973.
  20. Emilsson E. Ö., Before the ‘European Miracles’. Four Essays on Swedish Preconditions for Conquest, Growth, and Voice. Doctoral Dissertation at the Department of Economic History, Göteborg University 2005.
  21. Флоря Б., Центральная Европа в Европе средневековья, w: А. И. Миллер (red.), Центральная Европа как исторический регион, Институт славяноведения и балканистики, Москва 1996.
  22. Haldon J., The State and the Tributary Mode of Production, Verso, London – New York 1993.
  23. Iriye A., Transnational History, „Contemporary European History” 13 (2)/2004.
  24. Galtung J., Inayatullah S. (red.), Macrohistory and Macrohistorians: perspectives on Individual, Social and Civilizational Change, Praeger, Westport – London 1997.
  25. Murvar V., Patrimonial-Feudal Dichotomy and Political Structure in Pre-Revolutionary Russia: One Aspect of the Dialogue Between the Ghost of Marx and Weber, „The Sociological Quarterly” 12/1971.
  26. Коротаев А. В., Крадин Н. Н., Лынша В. А., Альтернативы социальной эволюции (вводные замечания), w: idem, Альтернативные пути к цивлизации, Логос, Москва 2000.
  27. Крадин Н. Н., Политическая антропология, Логос, Москва 2004.
  28. Norkus Z., Nepasiskelbusioji imperija. Lietuvos Didžioji Kunigaikštija lyginamosios istorinės imperijų sociologijos požiūriu, Aidai, Vilnius 2009.
  29. Olstein D., Comparative History: The Pivot of Historiography, w: B. Z. Kedar (red.), Explorations in comparative history, The Hebrew University Magnes Press, Jerusalem 2009.
  30. Olstein D., Thinking History Globally, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke – New York 2015.
  31. Pipes R. E., Russia under the Old Regime. Second Edition, Penguin Books, London 1995.
  32. Reynolds S., Fiefs and Vassals. The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted, Oxford University Press, New York 1994.
  33. Reynolds S., The Use of Feudalism in Comparative History, w: B. Z. Kedar (red.), Explorations in Comparative History, The Hebrew University Magnes Press, Jerusalem 2010.
  34. Stahl H. H., Comentarii la problema „orînduirii tributale româneşti”, “Viitorul social” t. 6, 4/1977.
  35. Stahl H. H., Analiza sociologicǎ a orînduirii „tributale“ româneşti, “Viitorul social” t. 7, 3/1978.
  36. Stahl H. H., Teorii şi ipoteze privind sociologia orînduirii tributale, Editura ştiinţifică şi enciclopedică, Bucureşti 1980.
  37. Ward J. O., Feudalism: Interpretative Category or Framework of Life in the Medieval West?, w: E. Leach et al. (red.), Feudalism: Comparative Studies, Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture, Sydney 1985.
  38. Васильев Л. С., История Востока, t. 1-2, Высшая школа, Москва 2001.
  39. Weber M., Gospodarka i społeczeństwo. Zarys socjologii rozumiejącej, PWN, Warszawa 2002.
  40. Wickham Ch., The Uniqueness of the East, w: T. J. Byres, H. Muhkia (red.), Feudalism and Non-European Societies, Frank Cass, London 1985.
  41. Wickham Ch., Land and Power. Studies in Italian and European Social History, 400-1200, British School at Rome, London 1994.
  42. Wolf E. R., Europe and the People without History, University of California Press, Berkeley – Los Angeles – London 2010.
  43. Семёнов Ю. И., Политарный («Азиатский») способ производства: сущность и место в истории человечества и России, Волшебный ключ, Москва 2008.
  44. Тржештик Д., Среднеевропейская модель государства периода раннего средневековья, w: idem, Этносоциальная и политическая структура раннефеодальных славянских государств и народностей, Наука, Москва 1987.