The latest study methodology of agrarian history of Ukraine: rural studies

Abstract

The purpose of the article. The authors of the article aim to gain knowledge about the latest methodology of historical and agrarian research in Ukraine, in particular, about such a methodological paradigm as rural studies. 
The scientific novelty of the publication lies in the fact that the authors have analysed the use of rural studies in modern studies of agrarian history. In particular, it was established that, firstly, rural studies is a relatively new methodology that was formed during the 1960s – 1980s as a reflection on the processes of globalization, it was the result of returning «face to the peasants». It represents a new understanding of the non-linear multifaceted interaction of rural and urban subsystems of society; secondly, rural studies unite all scientific directions that study certain components of the rural territorial subsystem
of society; thirdly, the conceptual apparatus of rural studies includes «rurality», «rural development», «ruralization»,
«ruralism», «rural history»; fourthly, rural history, according to ruralists, despite the debatable theoretical development of the concept, is a component of rural studies, an independent branch of historical science in the context of rural studies, which is both theoretical and empirical history, the subject field of which is rural space and rural territories; fifthly, the heuristic value of rural studies in general and ruralism in particular is that the latter is designed to form a systematic view of the prospects and ways of rural development in a post-industrial society. The heuristic potential of rural studies is fully revealed in the studies related to the agrarian history of Ukraine in the 2000s. The authors of the article did not find works written on the basis of rural studies, which relate to the earlier periods of the agrarian history of Ukraine, so we cannot talk about the heuristic potential of the rural studies in relation to earlier periods of agrarian history Ukraine does not have to; sixthly, the ruralists’ thesis that rural history is broader than agrarian history or the history of the peasantry needs additional theoretical refinement. In particular, the ruralists’ proposed understanding of the essence of rural history, its scientific toolkit, requires additional argumentation. Considering the results of the analysis of the considerations proposed by them regarding the essence of rural history, according to the authors of the article, they only strengthen the understanding of the latter as a synonym of agrarian history; seventhly, the ruralists have not provided a coherent system of convincing evidence in favor of their thesis that ««agrarianism» and «ruralism» are not the same thing». On the contrary, the considerations proposed by the ruralists give sufficient grounds to speak of ruralism as agrarianism of the second half of the 20th – beginning of the 21st century; eighthly,
there are no fundamental differences between agrarianism and rural studies, they complement each other as methodological paradigms. For example, if agrarianism is a heuristic scientific tool for studying the pre-industrial, industrial peasantry, then ruralism is a post-industrial one. In this way, synergy or complementarity is achieved – enlargement of chronological boundaries, object and subject fields of research, panoramic and thoroughness of new scientific knowledge obtained, etc.