Criticism of National History from Revisionist Positions in Modern Ukraine: Methodological Gaps

Abstract

The purpose of the research is to substantiate the falsity of some of the methodological foundations of revisionist proposals concerning national history that give rise to claims of its “unscientific” and “intellectual anachronism” and to strengthen the thesis of the scientific legitimacy of such a kind of historiography through methodological arguments.

The research methodology is based on the methods of historiographic analysis and synthesis, as well as historiographical comparativity.

The scientific novelty is to justify the methodological gaps of the revisionist critique of national history in modern Ukraine and to substantiate the provision on its complete methodological correctness. First, it is argued that national history, in its cognitive characteristics, is no different from other ways of gaining scientific understanding of the past. Secondly, it is proved that the connection of national history to the present, like any other varieties of historical writing, is inevitable. Such a project of professional historiography, while retaining scientific consciousness, is at the same time one of the most important in modern Ukraine in view of its important positive social functions.

Conclusions. The main mistake of the methodological nature, which is assumed by the critics of national history in modern Ukraine, is to replace the concepts: the nation and ways of studying its past. Therefore, the epistemological shortcomings of the ethnocentric version of national history appealed to by critics are unreasonably extended to other ways of knowing the national past. Instead, the territorial/multiethnic version, supplemented by the achievements of other models of cognition (cultural, social, global history, etc.), overcomes the shortcomings of the ethnocentric and gives the national history a full academic respectability. National history, like other varieties of historical writing, retains an active connection with the Ukrainian present. However, this aspect belongs to the norm of functioning of professional historiography and not to academic deviance.