Lietuvos istorijos studijos
Not a member yet
829 research outputs found
Sort by
Immanuelio Wallersteino kapitalistinės pasaulio sistemos teorija
Get PDFOne of the most significant tendencies in the development of Western historiography and social sciences in the last three decades has been the consolidation of a new multidisciplinary field of inquiry, comparative historical sociology (CHS). Reinhard Bendix, Charles Tilly, and Immanuel Wallerstein can be considered parents/creators of CHS in the U.S.A. The theory of the Capitalist World System (CWS), initiated by the American sociologist and historian I. Wallerstein (b. 1930), who started his career researching the contemporary history of Africa, is one branch of the CHS. This theory was formulated in opposition to Eurocentrism, which is characterized by a belief in the endless (linear) progress of European civilization and which discounts other (non-European) cultures. Wallerstein\u27s popularity and influence in Western social sciences reached its zenith in the 1970s and 1980s, so that while perhaps coming late in the game, nonetheless knowledge and acquaintance with the ideas of this author can be useful for the conceptual renewal of modern Lithuanian historiography and for the investigation of problems in the socio-economic history of Central and Eastern Europe. The main strength of the CWS\u27s approach is the possibility to expand historical thinking to regional and global perspectives in reply to the challenges facing social, political, and geopolitical reality and to interpret the history of every region in the historical context of local and world (meta) civilization.
The main objectives of this article are: 1) to clarify the methodological traits and sources of the CWS\u27s theory; 2) to reconstruct retrospectively the development of the CWS\u27s theory in the works of Wallerstein (from the 16th to the second half of the 19th c.); 3) to discuss the critique and reception of CWS\u27s theory.
The subject of Wallerstein\u27s study of CWS\u27s theory is the origin and development of the capitalist world-system itself. CWS arose on the basis of the European world-economy during the "long" 16th century (1450-1640) and has been in existence ever since. CWS is an economic world based on capitalist production and division of labor, politically organized in the form of a union between sovereign and competing states. An especially important distinguishing feature of CWS is the differentiation into three economic zones: the core, the periphery, and the semi-periphery (according to their role in the world division of labor). The most important theoretical sources of CWS are dependency theory, F. Braudel\u27s theory of history, K. Marx\u27s theory of capitalism, and the Marxist theory of imperialism. Because of the dominant significance of Marxist sources, CWS can be considered a neo-Marxist theory.
The development of the CWS\u27s theory (from the 16th to the second half of the 19th c.) has three stages: 1) agrarian capitalism - the beginning of the CWS\u27s theory; 2) mercantile capitalism - the outcome of the consolidation of the CWS\u27s theory; 3) globalization period of the CWS.
The critics of Wallerstein\u27s theory of the CWS could be relatively differentiated into two groups - historians/sociologists based on Marxism and sociologists/ economists. The first group emphasizes that the theory of CWS is deficient in empirical adequacy, ignores the relationship between class structure and economic development, exaggerates the importance of the market on the internal socio-economic development of countries, and orients toward economism. Sociologists and economists notice that the theory does not analyze explicitly the influence of institutions on the emergence of capitalism and institutional development of the hierarchy of geo-economic zones.
Synthesis of global and regional contexts investigating socioeconomic reality of the past could give higher empirical adequacy to the CWS\u27s theory. On the other hand, the influence of the CWS\u27s theory is confirmed by the further development of international political economy and radical renewal of cultural anthropology (not mentioning historical sociology)
Kuo svarbi istoriografijos istorija? Istorikų identiteto problemos Lietuvos istoriografijoje
Get PDFThis article discusses the limits of competence of the history of historiography. An attempt is made to answer the question, what positive effect could be gained from the investigations of the history of historiography for society, the historians\u27 community, and individual researchers. Such a task could be posed considering the history of historiography as a complex discipline. Currently, efforts are made to evaluate the tradition of the research in the 20th century. The article raises an issue, whether it is possible to realize these efforts without conceptual history of historiography; hypotheses about alteration of identities of the community of Lithuanian historians are formulated
Lietuvos istorijos sintezė kaip vizualinės komunikacijos priemonė. Rec.: Bumblauskas A. Senosios Lietuvos istorija 1009-1795. Vilnius: R. Paknio leidykla, 2005. 488 p.
Get PDF
Neformalūs korupciniai santykiai šiandienėje Lietuvoje: sampratos ir praktikos (bandymai analizuoti blato raidą)
Get PDFOver the past decade, the corruption has become a popular concern, the subject of considerable investigation, and the target of international efforts in Lithuania. In a period of communism, role blat as one form of corruption plays a major role in explaining the everyday economic practices of Soviet society. Blat is a person or use of informal network (reciprocity) based on trust and established relations using friends, acquaintances, or relatives to obtain goods and values. In Soviet times, blat existed in shortage conditions and was an alternative for central distribution of state resources that became the legitimate feature of behavior and mentality. The main task of my article is the investigation of informal relations in contemporary Lithuania. At least two different hypotheses might be relevant to consider: one, which claims that such phenomenon as blat no longer exists, and another stating that the practices of using informal networks still exist, albeit in different forms. My focus in this paper was if and how Lithuanians of today use their informal networks (blat) and personal relations to obtain goods or values from people in formal positions in everyday life. I argue that despite some changes, informal relations play a crucial role in many contemporary social transactions in Lithuania and create the environment where corruption can successfully flourish
Pirmoji lietuvių moterų judėjimo istorija (Apie Virginijos Jurėnienės daktaro disertaciją "Lietuvių moterų judėjimas XIX a. pabaigoje-XX a. pirmoje pusėje")
Get PDFVilniaus universiteto istorinės atminties modeliai ir praeities reprezentacijos XIX-XX amžiuje
Get PDFThe article aims at presenting the topic of Vilnius University in different ideologically and politically conditioned models of historical memory of the 19th and 20th centuries. The analysis is based on Jorn Rüsen\u27s theory of historical culture. The article focuses on the representational forms of Vilnius University of the past times, such as anniversaries (1828, 1929, 1979, 2004), monuments, commemoration galleries, naming of the courtyards and halls of the University, commemorating both the said anniversaries and marking other occasions, as sources of historical memory. During different periods of development - be it the Russian period (1795-1832), the Polish period (1919-1939), the Lithuanian period (1939-1940, 1941-1943) or the Soviet period (1940-1941, 1944-1990) - Vilnius University became the arena for the dominance of nationalistic, authoritarian, and totalitarian ideologies. Hence it is worthwhile to adjust the historiographic images that fail to deliberate the significance of these factors to the historical memories, fail to embrace the conflicts of the memories, and portray the past of Vilnius University merely from a perspective of a single nationalistic historical consciousness.
On the other hand, the different developmental periods witnessed not the "pure" nationalistic models of historical memory - such as the "Polish", "Russian", "Lithuanian", as well as the communist model - but rather a compromise of different models. The shifts in the historiography at the juncture of the 20th and 21st centuries enable us to perceive the Great Duchy of Lithuania as a country of East Central Europe, bound to make a leap towards Europeanization. The price of Europeanization for Lithuania was the polonisation of its culture. This interpretation is contrary to the traditional Lithuanian model of historical memory; it sheds a different light on the Lithuanian Poles and phenomena of Polish culture (including Vilnius University), interpreting them as part of the self-identity of Lithuanian culture. Yet again, changes in historiography make it possible for us to start perceiving and interpreting Vilnius University within the context of the universities of East Central Europe and Jesuit universities.
In the 16th-18th centuries, Vilnius University was the most eastward-forwarded outpost in the network of eastern universities, having no counterparts in terms of the area of its impact. Such an understanding and interpretation of the old Jesuit university adjusts the Russian (and partially the Lithuanian) model of historical memory, shaped since the epoch of Enlightenment. The above said enables drawing closer different models of historical memory - be they secular and confessional, Lithuanian and Polish - and creates the prerequisites for a multiperspective historical consciousness and historical memory
Senoji kultūros istorija ir naujoji kultūrinė istorija
Get PDFThe article compares two epochs in the history of the Western cultural history writing, with main attention paid to their theoretical assumptions: that of the late 19th - early 20th century (called in the article "old history of culture") and that of the late 20th - early 21st century (known as "new cultural history"). Both of them emerged as challengers: the old history of culture was conceived as the alternative to the once dominant political history, and the new cultural history challenged the social history that dominated in the Western history writing since the 1960s. However, the theoretical sources of their respective concepts of culture are very different. The old history of culture shares its psychologistic, holistic, organicist, and essentialist ideas of culture with the philosophy of culture of the late 19th - early 20th century. New cultural history uses an analytical concept of culture peculiar to contemporary social science as its theoretical point of reference and considers the methods of field research in cultural anthropology as its methodological paradigm. From the analytical point of view (T. Parsons, C. Geertz), culture is an aspect of social reality, represented by the authoritative patterns for action and symbols. This idea of culture invites a historian to consider culture not as a specific set of social phenomena that are concentrated in the particular "cultural institutions" or segment of society, but as an aspect which can be detected in any social phenomena. This idea of culture opens the prospect of the cultural history of politics, cultural history of economy, and so on
