This paper desires to draw attention to some stereotypes that simplify perception of historical reality, but nevertheless still prevail in historiography. There is a very common statement about the so-called second edition of serfdom (based on manorial-serve economy) that spread all around the Eastern Europe region in the 16th century. This turn in social development is usually explained as determined by internal as well as external factors. If the problem considered is placed under Marxist views, one can distinguish two extreme poles: traditional Marxism and world-system approach. Supporters of traditional Marxism emphasize internal factors while adherents of world-system attitude accentuate external factors. The author argues that the regime of serfdom established in Moldova until 1600 is not consistent with the classic model. In this case, one can talk only about another type of second serfdom that differs from that of Eastern Germany as well as from Central Europe. It would be also a gross simplification to claim that second serfdom phenomenon was caused exclusively by external reasons. Internal causes are not less but probably even more decisive, at least in some cases. As the work of Darius Žiemelis has showed recently, statements of world-system approach toward certain societies are worth of critical reconsideration.
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.
XXI a. pokomunistinių šalių (kartu ir Lietuvos) istoriografijose vis dar vyrauja tokia klišė: visos agrarinės visuomenės, egzistavusios tam tikru laikotarpiu (Viduramžiais) ir sukūrusios savo valstybingumą, buvo feodalinės. Mūsų įsitikinimu, šie dogmatinio mąstymo reliktai kilę iš dviejų senstelėjusių metodologinių „matricų“: marksizmo-leninizmo istoriosofinės doktrinos ir europocentrinio visuotinės istorijos periodizacijos modelio.Žinoma, sekant rusų istorijos teoretiku Leonidu Grininu, visuotinės istorijos procesą galimą suvokti ir kaip bendrą raidą, bet tik visos žmonijos mastu. Todėl reikėtų skirti bent du lygmenis: visos žmonijos ir atskirų visuomenių. Šiame straipsnyje mums bus aktualus būtent antrasis, žemesnysis (t. y. atskirų visuomenių) lygmuo.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.