The Historical Process and Its Features

The Interconnection of Form and Content, Phenomenon and Essence in the Historical Process

It has been previously emphasized that the historical process possesses both general characteristics common to other processes and specific traits that define its uniqueness. This uniqueness, as we shall see, manifests itself in the interconnection between form and content, phenomenon and essence.

The life activities of people, both present and past, constituted by their relationships with nature and one another, are complex and multifaceted. The content of these activities in any society, and in each of its structural subdivisions, invariably finds expression in specific forms. This point is crucial to underscore, as some authors tend to believe in the possibility of a formless content. For instance, while discussing the works of the late writer Platonov, literary critic O. Mikhaylov stated, "Indeed, it does not burn; it is something that has been written not with a pen, but with something entirely different, incomprehensible to us. Arkhangelsky (a well-known parodist, V.V.) left his marvelous parodies of all outstanding writers, except for Platonov, whom he knew well. The impossibility of parody arises from the absence of form... There is no form." One would like to know how the author of these lines discerned this very formless "something." After all, even a basic understanding of dialectical principles warns against the unacceptable separation of form from content and vice versa, for these are two sides of a unified whole, which cannot exist or be revealed without one another. As Hegel emphasized, "Without form, there is no content."

What has been stated applies fully to the historical process. The content of the historical process consists of a combination of economic, political, social, and spiritual processes, historical events, and states with their inherent functions that characterize the social organism at various stages of its development. The form of the historical process refers to the manner of existence and expression of this content, the organization of movement, and the transformation of a given social organism.

In the relationship between content and form within the historical process, content represents the more dynamic and fluid aspect, while form encompasses the system of stable connections of the developing social organism. Indeed, only the variability of certain characteristics, properties, and relations inherent to a particular social organism allows us to speak of the existence of a historical process. At the same time, this very variability, along with its nature, can only be fixed, monitored, and studied through its contradictions—that is, the stability manifested in the existence of specific forms of the historical process. Examples of such forms include socio-economic formations, their stages that change one another, and the degrees or waves of civilization.

Being more mobile and changeable, the content of the historical process plays a decisive role in its interaction with form, which, to some extent, always lags behind content. However, it would be a mistake to consider form passive. It exerts an active influence on the content of the historical process and can either facilitate its development or, conversely, hinder it. The apparent mismatch between content and form currently restricts the emergence and development of young states that have arisen on the territory of the former Soviet Union. A comprehensive and profound analysis of both the content of the historical process and its form, as well as the mode of its manifestation at this pivotal stage, is required—not only from historians but also from economists, political scientists, and other social scientists.

The investigation of the interconnections between form and content in human history indicates that numerous new forms emerge, infused with old content, as well as old forms filled with new content. The former create only an illusion of renewal within the social organism, momentarily misleading the masses yearning for change, while the latter gradually prepare for progressive transformations of the social organism, circumventing the painful breaking of established forms of life without having a well-prepared and tested replacement. Generations of our compatriots have encountered the detrimental tendency of form-making, the severance of form from content, as they were ensnared by the clamor of demagogues like Gorbachev, Yakovlev, and others, seeking to dismantle old forms of life, which undoubtedly needed thoughtful and measured renewal, primarily by filling them with new content rather than through mindless destruction of everything and anything. This assembly of hollow orators has not yet quieted and continues to attempt, by manipulating the consciousness of trusting masses, to lead entire nations into a movement "toward nowhere," indifferent to their fates, as has become evident.

It must be noted that the strangeness, and at times the grotesqueness, of form in the historical process is linked to both its manifestation and its essence. For, when considering the form of any object, we must understand not only its external appearance but also its internal connections, structure, and the manner of organization of its movement. Here, it is quite fitting to recall Hegel's remark that "one cannot, therefore, ask how form attaches itself to essence; for it is merely the appearance of essence within itself, its own immanent reflection."

As we can see, form is inextricably tied to essence—the internal, deep, hidden, and relatively stable aspect of an object, phenomenon, or process that determines its nature, ensemble of traits, and other characteristics. Yet this connection is not realized directly, but rather through phenomena—the external, observable, more mobile, and changeable characteristics of a particular object or process. The possibility of cognizing a relatively independent domain of objective reality, an object, or a process, with the movement of cognition from external, superficial observations to the uncovering of their causes and laws, is ensured by the dialectical interconnection between phenomenon and essence. Essence reveals itself through phenomena that serve as its manifestations.

What has been said applies fully to the historical process, understanding of which is possible only through revealing the dialectical interconnection between phenomenon and essence. For instance, the oppositional movements of land magnates that have emerged since the time of the Augustan Principate, which clashed with the government, taking the form of provincial usurpers’ uprisings, urban plebeian revolts, and the severe defeats inflicted by the Persians, Germans, and Sarmatians, characterize the historical process of Roman society from the perspective of phenomena. However, its essence lay in the decline and fall that led to the collapse of what was once the mighty Roman Empire.

The existence of historical events that change one another, which occurred in the past, even if their reliability in the present is affirmed, allows us to conclude only about the presence of certain changes within the social organism, leaving the question of their direction open—this is precisely what is captured by the concept of "historical process." The very direction of the mentioned changes, particularly the essential ones, can be revealed only by comparing a series of historical states and conducting their objective, scientific analysis. The results of such an analysis, revealing the character of changes in economic and associated political, social, spiritual, and ideological relations, allow us, on one hand, to confirm the existence of the historical process in its entirety and its direction, and on the other hand, to create a reliable basis for the objective evaluation of individual events in the life activities of the studied social organism or specific phenomena.