Approaches to the study of history: civilizational and formational

The civilizational approach to the study of history is one of the methods that scientific minds resort to in order to clarify important questions course of events in the historical process of different eras. This method was greatly influenced by the works of such historians as A. Toynbee, K. Jaspers, N.Ya. Danilevsky and many others.

Studying the course of historical events on a global scale makes it possible to trace and understand how diverse this process is, and how many options for the formation of society, differing not only in advantages, but also in shortcomings.

The civilizational approach exists along with the formational approach, the main difference of which is that the basis of its study is socio-economic relations that are independent of the will of man. They exist due to objective circumstances. Civilization puts a person at the head of all ongoing processes, taking into account his norms of behavior, aesthetic and ethical views.

The concept of "civilization" appears in ancient times, but in the XVIII century it thoroughly became part of the historical vocabulary. Since that time, it has been actively used by representatives of science. In addition, the emergence of various theories of civilizations is also characteristic. I would like to note that the concept of "civilization" in ancient times was opposed to another Latin concept, meaning "savagery". Already in those distant times, people saw the difference between barbaric and civilized society and life in general.

Returning to the theories, the two main ones are stadial and local. In accordance with the first, civilization is a process of development in certain stages. Its initial moment can be considered the moment of disintegration primitive society, as a result of which humanity moved to the stage of the civilized world. Such civilizations can be classified as primary, since they did not have the opportunity to use the civilizational traditions that developed at a later time. They created them on their own, giving fruits to subsequent formations. The local-civilizational approach studies the historical aspects of the emergence of a community in a certain territory, which is characterized by its own socio-economic, cultural, political features. Civilizations local character can exist both within the framework of a certain state, and when several states are united.

A civilization of a local kind is a system that consists of various interrelated components: political structure, economic situation, geographical position, religion and many others. All these components perfectly reflect the uniqueness of a particular civilization.

The civilizational approach, as well as the stage approach, helps to look at the historical course of events from a different angle. The stage approach is characterized by considering the development of mankind in accordance with uniform and general laws. based on the individuality and diversity of historical processes. Therefore, it is very difficult to say which theory is better or worse. Both of them have the right to exist, as they are complementary to each other, having their own advantages. Figures of historical sciences have repeatedly attempted to combine both methods of study, but so far this has not happened, and has not been developed. general system that combines both theories.

Summing up, it should be noted that the civilizational approach helps to understand the main patterns and directions of the formation and development of world civilization, the originality of individual civilizations, and also makes it possible to compare the development processes of various civilizations.

Change of the main paradigm in domestic science

For a long time in domestic science, the main approach to the study historical process was the theory of formations, formulated and scientifically designed by K. Marx. However, with the collapse Soviet Union the basic scientific paradigm has also undergone major changes. In history, the civilizational approach has taken the leading position. It will be discussed in our article.

N. Danilevsky and civilizational approach

It cannot be said that such a view of the history of mankind was absolutely new for our country. As early as the beginning of the last century, it was founded by the remarkable Russian scientist Danilevsky, who was one of the first to consider the development of a particular people from the point of view of revealing its cultural potential. Subsequently, he began to be attributed to the group of those scientists who promoted the so-called local-civilizational approach. Its essence is to consider each civilization as a separate cultural and historical unit.

The essence of the civilizational approach

Most scientists are used to the fact that one or another paradigm provides them with the necessary tools for studying a certain phenomenon. However, the civilizational approach, unlike the formational one, cannot boast of this. The whole point is that present stage there is no single theory, and this approach itself is nothing more than a combination of similar methodological and methodological principles. In particular, at present this area is dominated by the views of such thinkers as Toynbee, Spengler, Sorokin, who considered the fundamental basis of their research to be the consideration world history as a total conglomerate of the development of individual peoples and states.

Basic principles of the new paradigm

The civilizational approach, despite the huge difference in concepts, is united by the following principles. First, there has been a replacement of the descriptive nature of research by the so-called "understanding" of processes. Secondly, the optimism that was inherent in the works of previous periods was gradually replaced by disappointment and the imposition of rationalism. Thirdly, if for the supporters of the formational approach the unity of world history was not questioned, then their ideological opponents for the most part insist on a local consideration of certain peoples. Finally, fourthly, the civilizational approach to the study of history focuses on the cultural formation and development of territories, the formation of a single cultural space.

Characteristics of the main term of the paradigm

A special place in the historical constructions of these scientists is occupied by the concept of "civilization". It, of course, also has its own characteristics for different researchers. However, in the main they are practically the same: civilization is a complex of relations between people, interconnected common history and cultural traditions.

At the same time, almost everyone argues that special importance is attached not so much to individual individuals as to the social communities they form.

Prospects for the new concept

Thus, the civilizational approach to the study of history is a rather complex and even confusing set of methodological approaches based on the perception of society from the standpoint of its cultural development.

Warm greetings to all my readers and friends of the site! In the top history Olympiads in recent times began to include various scientific historical theories. I have been observing this for a long time in social science, in history it is only gaining momentum.

Therefore, today we will consider a civilizational approach to the study of history. I myself used it at the university when writing term papers and a diploma. The approach is very interesting in itself. In general, if you want to pass all the Olympiads in history perfectly, then the information that I will give below must be seriously understood and assimilated.

What is an approach in history?

“Approach”, “theory of knowledge”, “methodology” are all one and the same. Yes, many colleagues will say that I am simplifying everything here - and this is true. It is important for me to convey the basics to you, and everyone can already dig deeper.

Imagine that you are looking through a keyhole at something interesting. It can be an old old house where strange people live, or just you see if you can get in there.

Everything you see is limited by the keyhole, its limits, boundaries. So this “keyhole” is the historical approach, the theory of knowledge or methodology. It allows scientists to analyze the events of the past, highlighting certain patterns in them.

In fact, the approach is a theory that globally explains why certain events occurred? Why did the historical process take this path and not another?

Basic principles of the civilizational approach

The civilizational approach to the study of history began to be actively applied in the past, the 20th century. Yes, he, in fact, then appeared in full. Although the origins, of course, go back to Antiquity - to Hesiod with his regressive development or to Aristotle.

The German historian and philosopher Oswald Spengler is rightfully considered one of the first founders of the scientific civilizational approach. Also, his theses were formulated in the writings of the English scientist Arnold Toynbee and then the American researcher Samuel Huntington. What were all these people talking about?

History develops non-linearly and not uniformly. The main thing is the concept of civilization. A civilization is a group of countries and peoples connected by a common culture and history. Read more details.

There were many civilizations: the ancient united in itself Ancient Rome and ancient Greece; Western European; Arabic, Sino-Buddhist (China, India, Japan, Korea), Orthodox, Anglo-American.

Any civilization goes through several stages of its development: birth, growth, flourishing and decline. And new civilization usually does not develop from scratch, but incorporates the achievements of the previous one. This is how Western European civilization adopted Roman achievements: Roman law, Latin, Christianity, the system of land relations (colonates), Roman culture.

Orthodox civilization, the center of which has always been Russia, built its existence mainly on Byzantine culture. And so on.

Every civilization is unique. There is no "bad" and "good" country, people, . Each such formation has its own unique culture, which was formed under the influence of unique natural conditions in which a given people or ethnic group was formed.

These ideas were further developed by British scientists and American anthropologists. The reason for this was very serious - Second World War. Or rather, the Pacific War, as a period or part of this global war.

The fact was that the United States entered the war with Japan - an extremely incomprehensible country. The Japanese did not surrender, killed themselves, mistreated prisoners of war and generally destroyed themselves for the sake of destroying enemy equipment. How to fight with such an enemy that you do not understand? After all, the first rule of war is to understand how your opponent thinks.

And so the American anthropologist Ruth Benedict, not knowing Japanese, living in the United States was able to study and identify the archetypes of Japanese culture, which has an extremely serious influence on the Japanese to this day. For the first time, a methodology was given that would explain essentially any culture. It also provided tools for understanding this culture.

You must understand that I simply cannot reproduce all the nuances and subtleties here. My task is to make you understand what a civilizational approach is.

So, considering history, the past as a set of civilizations, one can single out certain cultural elements that influenced people in the past. Then perhaps we will be able to understand why certain events occurred. This is a really cool methodology, from the realization of the possibilities of which hairs stand on end even where they do not grow 🙂

Of course, like any approach, it has a number of flaws. Chief among them is the question of uniform criteria for distinguishing civilizations. And they just don't exist. They don't have clear boundaries. However, the methodology works in a number of studies - and this is quite enough.

I hope you understand something from what you read. Ask questions in the comments if you have any questions. And questions always betray a thinking person.

We analyze in detail all theories of knowledge in our training courses, when we conduct webinars in preparation for the Olympiads. So, if you want to win history olympiads and pass the exam with really high scores, welcome to us, to our courses .

Also share this article with your friends in social networks: You don't care, but I'm pleased!

* This work is not scientific work, is not a final qualifying work and is the result of processing, structuring and formatting the collected information, intended for use as a source of material for self-study educational work.

Introduction

Formative approach

Civilization approach

Comparative characteristics of approaches

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

To form an objective picture of the historical process, historical science must rely on general concepts, which would help to structure all the accumulated material of researchers, to create models understandable to everyone.

For years in historical science, an objective-idealistic methodology or a subjectivist one prevailed. The historical process from the standpoint of subjectivism was explained by the action of great people. In this approach, smart calculations or mistakes led to some historical event, the totality and interconnection of which determined the course and outcome of the historical process.

Objective idealistic concept leading role in the historical process, it averted the action of superhuman forces: the Absolute Idea, the World Will, the Divine Will, Providence. Under the influence of all this, society was constantly moving towards a predetermined goal. Great people: leaders, kings, Caesars, emperors and others, acted only as an instrument of superhuman forces.

The periodization of history was carried out in accordance with the solution of the question of the driving forces of the historical process. The division according to historical eras had the greatest expansion: Ancient world, Antiquity, Middle Ages, Renaissance, Enlightenment, New and Newest time. In this division, although the time factor was expressed, there were no detailed suitable signs for distinguishing these epochs.

Put history, like other humanities, on a scientific basis, overcome the shortcomings of the methodology historical research, K. Marx tried in the middle of the 19th century. Karl Heinrich Marx was a German philosopher, sociologist, and economist. He formulated a system of views of the materialistic explanation of history, based on four principles.

1. The unity of mankind, as well as the similarity of the historical process.

2. historical pattern. Marx proceeds from the recognition in the historical process of recurring, stable, common connections and relationships between people, as well as the results of their activities.

3. Causal relationships and dependencies (the principle of determinism). According to K. Marx, the main determining factor in the historical process is the method of production of material goods.

4. Progress (the gradual development of society, which rises to higher levels).

Formative approach

The materialistic interpretation of history is based on the formational approach. In the teachings of Marx, the main position in explaining the driving forces of the historical process and the periodization of history is occupied by the concept of socio-economic formations. According to Marx, if a society is progressively developing, then it must pass certain stages. The German thinker called these stages “socio-economic formations”. Marx borrowed this concept from natural science familiar to him. In geography, geology, biology, this concept denotes specific structures connected by one condition of formation, similar composition, interdependence of elements.

The foundations of any socio-political organization K. Marx made this or that mode of production. The main production relations are property relations. All the diversity of the life of society at different stages of its development, includes a socio-political formation.

K. Marx assumed several stages in the development of society:

Primitive communal

slaveholding

feudal

capitalist

communist

Thanks to the social revolution, there is a transition from one social-economic formation to another. Conflicts in the political sphere take place between the lower strata, who are trying to improve their position, and the higher strata, who are striving to maintain their existing order.

The emergence of a new formation is determined by the victory of the ruling class, which carries out revolutions in all spheres of life. In Marxist theory, revolution and class wars play a significant role. Basic driving force history was the class struggle. According to Marx, the “locomotives of history” were revolutions.

During the last 80 years, the dominant point of view, based on the formational approach, was the materialistic concept of history. The main advantage of this idea is that it creates a clear explanatory model historical development. Human history is presented to us as a natural, progressive, objective process. The driving forces and the main stages, processes, etc. are clearly identified.

Also, the formation process has its drawbacks. Some critics of domestic and foreign historiography point to them. 1) Some countries did not follow the five phases. Marx referred these countries to the “Asiatic mode of production”. As Marx believed, based on this method, a separate formation is formed. But he did not provide additional data on this issue. Later historians showed that development in some European countries does not always correspond to these five phases. Drawing a conclusion on this issue, it can be noted that some difficulties are created in reflecting different options formational approach.

2) In the formational approach, the decisive role is given to non-personal factors, and the person is of secondary importance. It turns out that a person is just a screw in the theory of an objective mechanism driving historical development. It turns out that the human, personal content of the historical process is underestimated.

3) This methodology describes a lot through the prism of the class struggle. Huge role assigned as political processes as well as economic. Opponents of the formational approach argue that social conflicts, although they are a necessary property public life, but they still do not play a decisive role in it. This conclusion requires a reassessment of the place of political relations in history. The main role belongs to the spiritual and moral life.

4) Also in the formational approach there are notes of the interpretation of history as the Will of God, as well as the construction of plans for social reorganization, regardless of reality. The formational concept assumes that the development of the historical process will proceed from the classless primitive communal phase through the class phase to the classless communist phase. In the theory of communism, on the proof of which many efforts have been spent, in any case, an era will come when everyone will benefit according to his ability, and receive according to his needs. In other words, the achievement of communism would mean the establishment of the Kingdom of God on Earth. The nature of this system is reduced to utopian. Subsequently a large number of people abandoned the "building of communism."

Civilization approach

The formational approach can be opposed to the civilizational approach to the study of history. This approach began in the 18th century. Bright adherents of this theory are M. Weber, O. Spengler, A. Toynbee, and others. In domestic science, his supporters were K.N. Leontiev, N. Ya. Danilevsky, P.A. Sorokin. The word "civilization" comes from the Latin "civis", which means "city, state, civil".

From the point of view of this approach, the main structural unit is civilization. Initially, this term meant a certain level community development. The emergence of cities, writing, statehood, social stratification of society - all these were specific signs of civilization.

In a broad sense, civilization is basically understood high level development of public culture. For example, in Europe, in the Age of Enlightenment, civilization was based on the improvement of laws, science, morals, and philosophy. On the other hand, civilization is perceived as the last moment in the development of the culture of any society.

Civilization, as a whole social system, includes various elements that are harmonized and closely interconnected. All elements of the system include the originality of civilizations. This set of features is very stable. Under the influence of some internal and external influences, changes occur in civilization, but their basis, the inner core, remains constant. Cultural-historical types are long-established relationships that have a certain territory, and they also have features that are characteristic only.

Until now, adherents of this approach are arguing about the number of civilizations. N.Ya. Danilevsky identifies 13 original civilizations, A. Toynbee - 6 types, O. Spengler - 8 types.

There are a number of positive aspects in the civilizational approach.

The principles of this approach can be applied to the history of one country or another, or a group of them. This methodology has its own peculiarity, in that this approach is based on the study of the history of society, taking into account the individuality of regions and countries.

This theory suggests that history can be viewed as a multi-variant, multi-linear process.

This approach assumes unity and integrity human history. Civilizations as systems can be compared with each other. As a result of this approach, one can better understand historical processes and fix their individuality.

Highlighting certain criteria for the development of civilization, it is possible to assess the level of development of countries, regions, peoples.

In the civilizational approach, the main role is assigned to the human spiritual, moral and intellectual factors. Special meaning to assess and characterize civilizations have mentality, religion, culture.

The main disadvantage of the methodology of the civilizational approach is the shapelessness of the criteria for identifying types of civilization. This selection of like-minded people of this approach takes place on the basis of signs that should be of a generalized nature, but on the other hand, it would make it possible to note the features characteristic of many societies. In the theory of N.Ya. Danilevsky, cultural and historical types of civilization are divided into a combination of 4 main elements: political, religious, socio-economic, cultural. Danilevsky believed that it was in Russia that the combination of these elements took place.

This theory of Danilevsky encourages the application of the principle of determinism in the form of dominance. But the nature of this dominance has a subtle meaning.

Yu.K. Pletnikov was able to identify 4 civilizational types: philosophical and anthropological, general historical, technological, sociocultural.

1) Philosophical-anthropological model. This type is the basis of the civilizational approach. It makes it possible to more clearly present the uncompromising difference between civilizational and formational studies of historical activity. To fully understand the historical type of society allows the formational approach, which originates from the cognitive form of the individual to the social. The opposite of this approach is the civilizational approach. Which is reduced from the social to the individual, the expression of which is the public of man. Civilization appears here as the vital activity of society, depending on the state of this sociality. Orientation to the study of the world of man, and the man himself, is a requirement of a civilizational approach. So during the restructuring Western countries Europe from the feudal to the capitalist system, the formational approach focuses on the change in property relations, the development of hired labor, manufacture. However, the civilized approach explains this approach as a revival of the ideas of outdated cyclicality and anthropologism.

2) General historical model. Civilization- special kind particular society or their community. In accordance with the meaning of this term, the main signs of civilization are civil status, statehood, urban-type settlements. AT public opinion civilization is opposed to barbarism, savagery.

3) Technological model. The way of development and formation of civilization are public technologies reproduction and production of immediate life. Many understand the word technology in a rather narrow sense, especially in a technical sense. But there is also a broader and deeper concept of the word technology, based on the spiritual conception of life. So Toynbee paid attention in the etymology of this term that among the “tools” there are not only material, but also spiritual worldviews.

4) Sociocultural model. In the 20th century there was a "interpenetration" of the terms culture and civilization. On the early stage civilization is dominated by the concept of culture. As a synonym for culture, the concept of civilization is often presented, concretized through the concept of urban culture or a general classification of culture, its structural formations and subject forms. AT this explanation The links between culture and civilization have their limitations and their foundations. In particular, civilization is compared not with culture as a whole, but with its rise or fall. For example, for O. Spengler, civilization is the most extreme and artificial state of culture. It bears a consequence, as the completion and outcome of culture. F. Braudel believes, on the contrary, that culture - civilization, which has not reached its social optimum, its maturity, and has not ensured its growth.

Civilization, as was said earlier, is a special kind of society, and culture, according to the historical process, represents all types of society, even primitive ones. Summarizing statements American sociologist S. Huntington, we can conclude that civilization since its inception, is the broadest historical community of cultural equivalence of people.

Civilization is an external behavioral state, and culture is an internal state of a person. Therefore, the values of civilization and culture sometimes do not correspond to each other. It is impossible not to notice that in a class-separated society, civilization is one, although the fruits of civilization are not available to everyone.

Theories of local civilizations are based on the fact that there are separate civilizations, large historical communities which have a certain territory and their own characteristics of cultural, political, socio-economic development.

Arnold Toynbee, one of the founders of the theory of local civilizations, believed that history is not a linear process. This is the process of life and death of civilizations not interconnected with each other in different corners Earth. Toynbee singled out local and main civilizations. The main civilizations (Babylonian, Sumerian, Hellenic, Hindu, Chinese, etc.) left a pronounced mark on the history of mankind and had a secondary influence on other civilizations. Local civilizations merge within the national framework, there are about 30 of them: German, Russian, American, etc. The challenge thrown from outside of civilization, Toynbee considered the main driving forces. The response to the challenge was the activity of talented, great people.

The cessation of development and the appearance of stagnation is caused by the fact that the creative minority is able to lead the inert majority, but the inert majority is able to absorb the energy of the minority. Thus, all civilizations go through stages: the birth, growth, breakdown and decay, ending with the complete disappearance of civilization.

There are also some difficulties in assessing the types of civilization, when the main element of any type of civilization is mentality, mentality. Mentality is the general spiritual mood of the people of any country or region, an extremely stable device of consciousness, a multitude of socio-psychological foundations of the beliefs of the individual and society. All this determines the worldview of a person, and also forms the subjective world of the individual. Based on these attitudes, a person works in all spheres of life - creates history. But alas, the spiritual, moral and intellectual structures of a person have a rather vague outline.

There are also some claims to the civilizational approach associated with the interpretation of the driving forces of the historical process, the meaning and direction of the development of history.

Thus, within the framework of the civilizational approach, comprehensive schemes are created that reflect general patterns development for all civilizations.

Comparative characteristics of approaches

It is best to identify the advantages and disadvantages of the civilizational and formational approaches by mutual criticism between the supporters of these approaches. Thus, according to the supporters of the formation process, positive sides are that it allows:

1. See what is common in the historical development of peoples.

2. Present the history of society as a single process.

3. Suggest some sort of division of history individual countries and world history.

4. Establish the validity of the historical development of society.

In their opinion, the civilizational approach has the following disadvantages:

1. Due to consistent application, it becomes impossible to look at world history as a single process of historical development of all mankind.

2. A complete denial of the unity of human history, the isolation of societies and entire peoples is being created.

3. Reducing to a minimum the admissibility of the study of the patterns of the historical development of human society.

Supporters of the civilizational approach see its advantages in that it allows solving the following problems:

1. Helps to study those aspects of life that usually do not fall into the field of view of adherents of the formation process. (spiritual life, values, psychology, national characteristics ..)

2. Allows a deeper study of the history of certain peoples and societies in all their diversity.

3. main goal studies become human, and human activity.

Followers of the civilizational approach see the following shortcomings in the formational approach:

1. Most peoples did not go through most formations in their development.

2. Most of the processes (political, ideological, spiritual, cultural) cannot be explained only from an economic point of view.

3. With the consistent application of the formational approach, the role of human activity, and the human factor.

4. Insufficient attention is paid to the originality and uniqueness of individual peoples and societies.

Thus, the pros and cons of the proponents of the approaches prove that the advantages of the two approaches are complementary, and through their combination, one can understand the story more deeply.

Conclusion

Civilizational and formational approaches to the study of history are often compared with each other. Each of these approaches has its positive and negative sides, but if you avoid the extremes of each of them, and take only the good in the two methodologies, then historical science will only benefit. Both approaches make it possible to consider historical processes from different angles, so they do not negate each other, but complement each other.

Literature

1. A.A. Radugina History of Russia. Russia in World Civilization Moscow: Biblionics 2004, 350

2. Marx K., Engels F. Op. 2nd ed. T. 9. S. 132.

3. Theory of state and law: Tutorial. SPb., 1997 (authors-compilers: L.I. Spiridonov, I.L. Chestnov).

4. Huntington S. Clash of Civilizations// Polis. 1994. No. 1.

5. Pozdnyakov E. Formational or civilizational approaches//World economy and international relationships. 1990. №5

6. Analysis and comparison of formational and civilizational approaches to the process of emergence and development of the state and law

From the point of view of this approach, the main structural unit is civilization. Initially, this term denoted a certain level of social development. The emergence of cities, writing, statehood, social stratification of society - all these were specific signs of civilization.

In a broad concept, civilization is generally understood as a high level of development of social culture. For example, in Europe, in the Age of Enlightenment, civilization was based on the improvement of laws, science, morals, and philosophy. On the other hand, civilization is perceived as the last moment in the development of the culture of any society.

Until now, adherents of this approach are arguing about the number of civilizations. N.Ya. Danilevsky identifies 13 original civilizations, A. Toynbee - 6 types, O. Spengler - 8 types.

There are a number of positive aspects in the civilizational approach.

- The principles of this approach can be applied to the history of this or that country, or their group. This methodology has its own peculiarity, in that this approach is based on the study of the history of society, taking into account the individuality of regions and countries.
- This theory suggests that history can be viewed as a multi-variant, multi-linear process.
- This approach assumes the unity and integrity of human history. Civilizations as systems can be compared with each other. As a result of this approach, one can better understand historical processes and fix their individuality.
- Highlighting certain criteria for the development of civilization, it is possible to assess the level of development of countries, regions, peoples.
- In the civilizational approach, the main role is assigned to the human spiritual, moral and intellectual factors. Mentality, religion, culture are of particular importance for assessing and characterizing civilization.

This theory of Danilevsky encourages the application of the principle of determinism in the form of dominance. But the nature of this dominance has a subtle meaning.

Yu.K. Pletnikov was able to identify 4 civilizational types: philosophical and anthropological, general historical, technological, sociocultural.

1) Philosophical-anthropological model. This type is the basis of the civilizational approach. It makes it possible to more clearly present the uncompromising difference between civilizational and formational studies of historical activity. To fully understand the historical type of society allows the formational approach, which originates from the cognitive form of the individual to the social. The opposite of this approach is the civilizational approach. Which is reduced from the social to the individual, the expression of which is the public of man. Civilization appears here as the vital activity of society, depending on the state of this sociality. Orientation to the study of the world of man, and the man himself, is a requirement of a civilizational approach. Thus, during the restructuring of the Western countries of Europe from the feudal to the capitalist system, the formational approach focuses on the change in property relations, the development of hired labor, and manufacture. However, the civilized approach explains this approach as a revival of the ideas of outdated cyclicality and anthropologism.
2) General historical model. Civilization is a special kind of a particular society or their community. In accordance with the meaning of this term, the main signs of civilization are civil status, statehood, urban-type settlements. In public opinion, civilization is opposed to barbarism and savagery.
3) Technological model. The way of development and formation of civilization is social technologies of reproduction and production of direct life. Many understand the word technology in a rather narrow sense, especially in a technical sense. But there is also a broader and deeper concept of the word technology, based on the spiritual conception of life. So Toynbee paid attention in the etymology of this term that among the “tools” there are not only material, but also spiritual worldviews.
4) Sociocultural model. In the 20th century there was a "interpenetration" of the terms culture and civilization. At an early stage of civilization, the concept of culture dominates. As a synonym for culture, the concept of civilization is often presented, concretized through the concept of urban culture or a general classification of culture, its structural formations and subject forms. This explanation of the connection between culture and civilization has its limitations and its foundations. In particular, civilization is compared not with culture as a whole, but with its rise or fall. For example, for O. Spengler, civilization is the most extreme and artificial state of culture. It bears a consequence, as the completion and outcome of culture. F. Braudel believes, on the contrary, that culture is a civilization that has not reached its social optimum, its maturity, and has not ensured its growth.

Civilization, as was said earlier, is a special kind of society, and culture, according to the historical process, represents all types of society, even primitive ones. Summarizing the statements of the American sociologist S. Huntington, we can conclude that civilization since its inception has been the broadest historical community of cultural equivalence of people.

Theories of local civilizations are based on the fact that there are separate civilizations, large historical communities that have a certain territory and their own characteristics of cultural, political, socio-economic development.

Arnold Toynbee, one of the founders of the theory of local civilizations, believed that history is not a linear process. This is the process of life and death of civilizations not interconnected with each other in different parts of the Earth. Toynbee singled out local and main civilizations. The main civilizations (Babylonian, Sumerian, Hellenic, Hindu, Chinese, etc.) left a pronounced mark on the history of mankind and had a secondary influence on other civilizations. Local civilizations merge within the national framework, there are about 30 of them: German, Russian, American, etc. The challenge thrown from outside of civilization, Toynbee considered the main driving forces. The response to the challenge was the activity of talented, great people.

There are also some claims to the civilizational approach associated with the interpretation of the driving forces of the historical process, the meaning and direction of the development of history.

Thus, within the framework of the civilizational approach, comprehensive schemes are created that reflect the general patterns of development for all civilizations.