General trends in the development of American historiography in line with the pragmatic turn

Egorov Denis Ivanovich PhD in History Independent researcher 129128, Russia, Moscow region, Moscow, Bazhova str., 15.1, sq. 85 denyegorov1981@yandex.ru

The key trends in the development of modern American historiography were formed in line with the contradictions that historical science experienced in the last third of the last century. On the one hand, fragmentation and a focus on ideological and theoretical pluralism ensured an increase in the number of methodological innovations and research areas. On the other hand, there was a blurring of basic national ideas and narratives about them, the content of theses of modernist-type social concepts, and professional criteria for the historian's work. An illustrative example of the discussions around P. Novik's book "This Noble Dream: a Question of Objectivity" and the American Historical Profession." Its author stated that against the background of disciplinary fragmentation, the idea of theoretical synthesis was buried, there was a loss of criteria on the basis of which it would be possible to coordinate the opinions of historians on controversial issues ^{[24, p. 415]}. The "question of objectivity" has simply become superfluous. Novik's opponents have presented many arguments proving the exaggerated nature of his conclusions, but the criticism itself has produced so many different interpretations of the "question of objectivity" that it rather helped to reinforce his claims.

      Such costs steadily multiplied, exacerbating the state of methodological confusion, entailed an increase in the volume of odious research and discussions, and reduced the social significance of historical knowledge. One of Novik's opponents is J. Kloppenberg understood that it was not enough to formulate a reasoned criticism of relativistic views, but it was necessary to outline the line of succession of American historiography, to identify points of consensus on the scientific foundations of historical knowledge and the provisions of professional ethics. He saw all these possibilities in the native American philosophy of pragmatism and its epistemological attitudes: perspectivism (not all points of view are equivalent, but none has privileged access to objectivity), fallibilism (any knowledge is intermediate) and instrumentalism (theories and concepts are adaptive means of mastering reality). Since its inception in the 19th century, pragmatism has contributed to the resolution of ideological contradictions, and its most important epistemological significance lies in determining the "golden mean" in the conflict of opinions and defining criteria for their rational assessment. Regardless of ideological and theoretical preferences, the leading historians of the United States, according to Kloppenberg, were inspired by the works of Ch. Pierce, W. James, J. Dewey. Their views continue to be actively developed nowadays, while historians willingly rely on them when faced with the current problems of class, ethnic, religious, legal, gender and other types of contradictions ^{[21, p. 202-203, 222-223]}.

 Theoretical and methodological aspect of the topic

      Formation and development of the ideological foundations of the philosophy of pragmatism at the end of the XIX - beginning. In such a heterogeneous state as the USA, the XX century was a reflection of the search for ways to resolve ethnic and social conflicts for the common good, as well as the search for ways to adapt the world scientific heritage to their own needs. ^{[25, p. 907-908]}.

    By the mid-30s of the XX century, against the background of the obsolescence of the Rankean and positivist academic tradition, historians began to pay considerable attention to the epistemological attitudes of pragmatism: initially as a means of methodological renewal of the discipline. Rejecting the existing objectivist canons, representatives of the "progressive" school preferred to be guided by them (F. Turner, C. Beard, K. Becker), which significantly enriched the study of socio-economic topics. Later, opponents of the "progressive" school from the "consensus" school made accusations that pragmatism was used to justify subjectivism and presentism. Themselves, in fact, sharing the pragmatic thesis of the conformity of useful beliefs with the truth, they established the consensus of historians, the purpose of which was to smooth out the ambiguous political and social issues of American history. The methodology of pragmatism was depicted as a "middle way" of the popular dispute between idealists and materialists at that time ^{[21, p. 207-212]}.

      Since the 60s, due to the development of the methodology of analytical philosophy and structuralism, interest in pragmatism has been declining. It was even called "provincial philosophy". However, in the 80s, already against the background of the linguistic turn and the postmodern challenge of the rationalist tradition, the need to return to it began to be acutely felt. In European and American sociology of that time, the direction of "pragmatic sociology" was being formed, focused on solving applied problems with a rejection of fundamentalism and largely based on instrumentalism. The pragmatic turn is not directly related to the philosophy of pragmatism, but is a generalized name for the direction of research devoted to the multidimensional analysis of activity within its structural limitations and capabilities, in the system of the relationship of the motives of actors to the results of their activities ^{[16, p. 133-134]}. Such an emphasis allowed us to move away from the dead-end theoretical disputes of the 80s and 90s.

  US historians also responded to these trends, which opened up prospects for creating a new research format and overcoming the methodological anarchy formed under the influence of postmodernism. In historical science, the pragmatic turn is expressed by shifting the research emphasis from the study of the development of social relations to the study of social practices and their historical specificity ^{[2, pp. 405-407]}. This is reflected in the works of representatives of actively developing branches of research today: transnational, social, legal, environmental history, etc.

Following the provisions of the pragmatic turn brought characteristic adjustments to the work of historians:

- the relationship between the macro and micro levels of historical reality has been revised, since the macro level began to understand the long-term and regular reproduction of similar situations by actors;

 - the analysis focuses on the motives of actors, the conditions and features of their activities, rather than the role of determinant factors and socio-historical patterns;

- the methods of historical description have changed: contextual and procedural description has replaced explanatory models based on causal concepts.

      In the USA, the pragmatic turn has become most closely aligned with the philosophy of pragmatism, contributing to the resolution of accumulated scientific disagreements. Without exaggeration, it can be called the leading methodological trend at the moment. The disciplinary nature, the ability to integrate with previous and innovative approaches, the ability to adapt research projects to changing realities – all this suggests that for a long time it will maintain a scientific and cognitive perspective and social significance. Pragmatism was again defined as the "middle way", now between the tendencies towards dogmatism in objectivism and skepticism in relativism. Historians actively support the theoretical justification of their works with references to X. Putnam and R. Bernstein, who contributed to the renewal of pragmatism.

      The theoretical messages of H.'s works are valuable for historians . Putnam's goal was to actualize the logic of "common sense" and the concept of pragmatic realism. Historians are often reproached that in essence they do not possess the object of research, but are engaged in interpreting its descriptions, that the double mediation of data does not allow knowledge to be objective. H. Putnam argued that objectivity is possible even in the absence (non-observability) of the object, because just as the actual content of the description is value-subjectively loaded Similarly , the value aspect is determined by the actual load. Objectivity should be understood as a normative attitude and the property of logical correctness of judgment, and not a reflective property of the object. In the matter of truth, Putnam's pragmatic realism is aimed at removing the subject/object dichotomy: consciousness and the world jointly create consciousness and the world ^{[4, pp. 9-13]}. Pragmatic realism is the process of removing doubts or unfounded beliefs, as a result of which rational beliefs are formed, which corresponds to the truth. Thus, reducing objectivity to the correctness of judgments, and truth to the absence of doubt, Putnam designated the points of report for productive cognitive activity, which allows avoiding the one-sidedness of metaphysical realism and cultural-historical relativism.    

      R. Bernstein's works have gained popularity among American historians, as they reveal the thesis that pragmatism is the philosophy of democracy. Most often referring to the ideas of Ch. R. Bernstein developed the concept of communicative rationality, where rationality was understood as the result of a constructive discussion in search of the best option. The low productivity of scientific communication, in his opinion, boils down to two reasons opposing democratic knowledge. Firstly, various "isms" seek to justify not their usefulness, but their reasons. Secondly, pluralism is misunderstood as the equivalent value of any hypotheses. Pragmatism is a means of effective dialogue that can overcome the costs of monism and pluralism ^{[9, p. 1, 15-22]}. R. Bernstein defines the principles of pragmatic cognitive activity as: anti-fundamentalism, "strong" pluralism, openness to public criticism. From the perspective of communicative rationality, truth is given the role of a working hypothesis.

       Works of H. Putnam and R. Bernstein do not significantly reform the ideas of the classics of pragmatism, they reflect all the same perspectivism, fallibilism and instrumentalism. However, they are protected from simplified interpretations, from being used for destructive criticism and justification of voluntarism. The revival of pragmatism in the form of teaching about the principles of productive cognitive activity and the effective implementation of methodological possibilities marked the next stage in the development of American historiography with new views on the rationalization of historical experience. This rationalization is often understood as the next forms of ideological consolidation of society and the theoretical synthesis of historical knowledge.

     Previously, ideological consolidations based on pragmatism expressed the concepts of the "melting pot", "theory of coordinated interests", etc., in which the appeal to historical heritage was designed to smooth out collective differences for the sake of common progressive development. Today, ideological consolidation is expressed in the forms of multiculturalism and civic inclusivity, in which an analysis of the daily practical activities of various groups (by gender, class, race, religion, etc.) reveals their historical contribution to the development of American society and democracy ^{[19, p. 279-290]}.

      The search for theoretical synthesis in line with the pragmatic turn is carried out on a disciplinary basis ^{[28, p. 25]}. This is a collaboration of specialists from different fields (historians, linguists, sociologists, psychologists, etc.) in working on a common problem topic. The comparison of various expert opinions and the discovery of common ground is recognized as the result most consistent with reliability. In recent years, American historical publications often publish not only historians, but the authors of about half of the articles in the collections may be specialists of other professions.

   Conducting research in the style of a pragmatic turn implies a change in the thinking of historians. Social practices and experience, forms of historical memory – these objects of study cannot be disclosed by means of causal and factor analysis. Such approaches are presented as simplifying reductions that entail the extremes of objectivism and relativism.  The first is characteristic of historical views involving versions of social determinism, the second – with historians relying on linguistic determinism ^{[5, pp. 141-146]}.

      Social determinism in explaining historical processes and phenomena is represented mainly by relying on the theories of K. Marx, E. Durkheim and M. Weber. Their works are the foundation of the three most significant areas of social historiography: historical materialism, the school of Annals (I and II generations) and techno-modernist concepts of development. Each of the directions expresses its own version of the sociologization of history and social determinism.  In sociology itself, for a long time there was a crisis of trust in authorities, a process developed that, on the contrary, can be called the historicization of the social ^{[6, p. 8-11]}. The very concept of socialization began to mean not the inclusion of individuals in social relations with the assimilation of their norms, but inheritance, experience, verification, reproduction and transformation of experience. These social practices are described using examples of specific situations, but through specificity their common and universal features are revealed. Thus, the concept of experience overcame the incompatibility of micro and macro levels of social reality, which were separately dealt with by "field" sociologists and theorists of social determinism. Class structure, mentality, the connection of collective values with economic and managerial activities, etc., are just some of the facets of the social, which should not be reduced to its definition. They are both the results of everyday practices and their structural foundations. These provisions are united by the works of P. Bourdieu, E. Giddens, B. Latour, G. Garfinkel and other scientists whose concepts define the face of modern social science.  

      "Pragmatic sociology" contributed to the revival of interest in social history, which had previously been in a state of crisis due to the disagreements of supporters of various variants of social determinism. They provoked ideological disputes, which affected the scientific prestige of the industry and led to a loss of confidence in the objectivity of interpretations. Now the historical material was intended to illustrate the role of various aspects of interpersonal relationships, such as solidarity, collective trauma, habits, etc. The general motives of such works were, firstly, the "turn to man", with an emphasis on the experiences, motives and features of the actors' activities in specific spatial and temporal conditions. Secondly, they share the thesis that the success of the implementation of activities is associated with the level of social consolidation, taking into account the interests of all legitimate groups.  In dynamics, this meant that the key direction of the socio-historical process is the progressive democratization of various spheres of public relations ^{[1, pp. 161, 163-164]}. Pragmatism, as a philosophy of democratic knowledge, aims at a multifactorial and interrelated analysis of events and processes, the evaluation criteria focus on determining the degree of effectiveness of actors.  

   From the standpoint of linguistic determinism, historical writing is presented mainly as a kind of verbal creativity. In a moderate version, it was already present in the theoretical views of the neo-Kantians, who argued that in historical knowledge, which has a subjective value character, the choice of descriptive means plays a predominant role. During periods of increasing scientism in American historiography, under the influence of neo-Kantianism, discussions have repeatedly arisen about the role of rhetoric and aesthetics in actualizing the past. However, they have not gained the significance of the leading methodological trend. 

      The situation changed with the beginning of the popularization of postmodernism, which has spread widely in the intellectual environment of the United States. It has become a powerful critical tool and a direction for the search for new forms of historical knowledge during the formation of the post-industrial era. The linguistic determinism inherent in postmodernism was used to discredit academic historiography by exaggerating the importance of the figurative and aesthetic aspects in historical writings, which led to their identification with fiction. The linguistic turn turned into a "semiotic challenge" to the discipline ^{[28, p. 1-2]}. Followers of this trend argued that historical concepts lack consistency and direct connection with the object content, so they are more metaphors than definitions. Although this position contributed to the elimination of simplified objectivism, it turned out to be a dead end due to its radical relativism. A return to more traditional versions of pragmatism was needed.

      As a departure from linguistic determinism in line with the pragmatic turn in historiography, attention has shifted from the analysis of the symbolic aspect of historical texts to the analysis of the semantic aspect ^{[18, p. 63]}. In particular, it was a question of responding to the postmodern criticism of the so-called Big Stories (national histories, histories of civilizations, concepts of progress, etc.), which, due to ideological bias and signs of appropriate rhetoric, were defined as a kind of social myth-making, products of narrativization and other derivatives of discursive reality. Representatives of the pragmatic turn partially agree with such statements, as they believe that they contribute to the development of critical and self-reflective thinking of historians.  However, in the formation of historical representations, the role of non-discursive reality is no less important ^{[12, p. 44-45]}, that is, the empirical reality of everyday life, which affects the pragmatics of the semantic content of historical texts. Big stories in different periods of development reflect their characteristic practices of rationalizing historical experience. Today, the world is united by economic ties, information space, and environmental problems – all this requires the creation of a new format of Big Stories, the narration of which would reveal in multicultural terms the interconnectedness of world development, the similarity of daily activities, common goals, motives, and values.

      As well as the historicization of social teachings, it was proposed to historicize textualization ^{[8, p. IX-XII]} – the process of actualization of a certain discourse, depending on the context. When postmodernists carry out a critical discourse analysis of historical narratives, they usually back up their arguments with criticism of the political rhetoric present in them, which the authors presented as a scientific point of view. But the textualization of history does not necessarily have to be linked to the political context. History is indeed closely linked to the discourse of power, however, as social development progresses, more and more groups of the population seek to acquire their historical identity, acquiring their own voice. In modern historiography, various small groups that were previously considered marginal reveal their past. Their historical narratives are not created in line with the logics characteristic of politicized stories: their own/others', dominant/subordinate, developed/backward, etc. They express a new form of textualization – the idea of acquiring history as a sign of expanding the sphere of equality, which was previously possessed by individual elites, estates, classes.

      So, based on the material of historical practices of everyday life, a pragmatic turn became a catalyst for the development of US historiography in the beginning. XXI century, returning it to the rationalist tradition and modernizing the liberal democratic ideas that consolidate American society. By the most everyday history, one should not understand the previous micro-stories about the everyday life of the past. Everyday life, routine, habits, etc. have become the context of the functioning of practices and increments of experience, which are specific depending on the structural properties of a particular sphere of public life.    

Pragmatic theses in selected research fields

      In the field of industry research, the pragmatic turn does not manifest itself in the form of following a certain theory with its characteristic provisions and patterns. The signs of his methodological influence are similar research tools and a common discursive field, which express such concepts as experience, practices, actor-agents, an updated comparative method, contextual analysis. The mechanisms of borrowing, legitimization, displacement of the former and the formation of new ways of activity and its rationalization are studied. The general cognitive strategy consists in the formulation of new forms of synthesis between the theses and antitheses of previous research experience, as well as preliminary deconstruction with subsequent expansion of the meaning of the concepts on the basis of which historical identity is constructed. Let's consider the signs of a turn towards pragmatism and its role in the development of such promising sectors in the historiography of the United States as transnational history, social history, environmental and legal history.

    Studies from the perspective of transnational history should be distinguished from works on the history of international relations and globalization in the spirit of modernist-progressive discourse, as well as from postcolonial studies closely related to the discourse of postmodernism. They arose from the study of migration processes, ethnic diasporas, and foreigners' impressions of the United States ^{[22, p.13-15]}. Their belonging to the pragmatic turn expresses the emphasis on the analysis of cultural exchange practices that transcend national borders: "the most effective transnational historical studies are those that explore how cultural practices and ideologies shape, limit or contribute to the economic, social and political conditions in which people and goods circulate in local, regional and global contexts" ^[11].

    Most notable for the historiography of the United States is the reinterpretation of the concept of the American nation or the "denaturalization of the nation" in a transnational sense. "Denaturalization" is the rejection of teleology and narratives about certain primordial entities (ideological, mental, institutional, etc.) characterizing national identity.  The nation is described as an actor who perceives and transforms experience in accordance with urgent motives and needs. An important source of experience is the cultural exchange brought by migration waves. Until the nineteenth century, European migration with its "cultural baggage" prevailed, so the self-determination of the United States as an Atlantic power was typical. At the end of the 19th century, when large-scale Asian emigration began to occur, and especially after the Philippine War, the former boundaries of national identity were overcome, as the United States became a Pacific power in many ways ^{[29, p. 1-10]}.

   Such formulations had two goals. Firstly, the consolidating one is the smoothing of ethnic contradictions within the country. Secondly, the construction of new forms of Large Narratives, which should take their rightful place alongside the previous world histories. According to popular beliefs, globalization developed in three stages: the establishment of common trade relations during the period of Great Geographical Discoveries; the formation of common production and market chains during the period of colonialism; the formation of a common cultural space in the modern period. The United States, as a country of emigrants, has the most impressive historical experience of cultural exchange and productive international synthesis. Its most important global role is to spread this experience. As earlier national stories served the ideas of national self-determination, now transnational stories serve the ideas of globalization ^{[22, p.10]}. This is their pragmatic meaning.

      The pragmatic turn contributed to the renewal of social history, which had previously experienced the loss of leading positions against the background of popularization of cultural interpretations of social phenomena. There has been a change in research priorities, which is called the transition from social history to the history of society ^{[12, p. 33-34]}. Studies of the modernist type, designed to illustrate on historical material the structure and dynamics of the development of any theoretical model of social stratification (by class, property, legal or gender), were pushed aside by a huge number of works that could not be generalized. Their common feature was only that the object of the analysis was one or another practice of public life. Figuratively speaking, the focus has shifted from the analysis of social development strategies to the analysis of tactics and logistics. However, it was not just an increase in the number of empirical studies. It is the content of organizational, communicative, routine practices of daily activities and their specificity, depending on the conditions, that have become the defining historical features of fundamental phenomena: class, state, inequality, status, gender, etc. In response to the sociological structure/action dilemma, history "from below" refutes the direct deterministic influence of public institutions on the behavior of the masses, this influence is considered as correlative ^{[16, p. 137-139]}.

      The return of interest in social history occurred due to the strengthening of the humanistic aspect in it and the desire of historians to destroy various social stereotypes, the hotbeds of which were, among other things, some modernist theories. It is noteworthy that there is increased attention to the history of various small, local and once marginal groups, as well as deviant and non-standard behavior. If earlier the appeal to such topics was motivated by the desire to endow people with their own past who had previously been deprived of it, then recently the role of minorities in general processes has been emphasized. For example, the contribution to the social welfare of the unemployed can be analyzed, and their situation is explained not by the fact that they are "losers", but by the shortcomings of the system.

      The fragmentation of the social field with the allocation of an increasing number of groups and subcultures blurred ideas about the foundations of civic solidarity and collective identity. Both of these concepts were often considered mutually dependent. The thesis has become increasingly recognized that the more multidimensional social differentiation is, the more it corresponds to the democratic spirit ^{[19, p. 198-202]}. The level of socio-historical development is characterized by the volume of opportunities for actors to use the resources of structures and make existential choices in matters of social belonging, as well as the level of social mobility. In modern conditions of the development of democratic institutions, collective identities lose common criteria of self-determination, identity decentralization has occurred: "We realize ourselves in different ways — as citizens, as workers, as parents, as consumers, as sports or hobby lovers, as believers, and so on. These confessions are influenced by various kinds of power relationships, and they are largely driven by assumptions that define us as women or men.  At one level, this complexity and impermanence of the subject's positions is a banal observation.  But the important thing is that politics is usually conducted as if identity were fixed. Then the question arises: on what grounds, in different places and at different times, is the impermanence of identity temporarily fixed in such a way that allows individuals and groups to behave as a special type of agent, political or otherwise? How do people turn into actors by understanding themselves in a certain way? In fact, politics consists in an attempt to "tame the infinity of identity" ^{[12, p.48]}.

      From the perspective of a decentered identity, it is more correct to consider the activities of actors not in the form of the implementation of collective attitudes, but in the form of agency. Agency is a sociological category denoting the ability of people to take initiative and rationalize actions. The pragmatic significance of using this category in historical research lies in the formulation of new forms of solidarity in which the assessment of the contribution of social groups and their involvement in industrial, democratic, humanitarian and other processes is freed from being tied to belonging to any "more significant" social statuses ^{[20, p. 188-193]}.

     The pragmatics of research in the field of environmental history is to overcome the dualistic consideration of natural and social processes in order to harmonize them ^{[10, p. 201-204]}. The historiography of the industrial era tended to depict social phenomena in an isolated, self-determined form, in isolation from the influence of the natural environment, or it was assigned the role of a landscape and a resource base. Back in 1967, one of the pioneers of environmental history, R. Nash, in the monograph "Wildlife and the American Mind" began to substantiate the thesis about the relationship of the moral principles of the social system with the attitude of its members to wildlife. The condition of a real democracy, in his view, should be the rejection of a utilitarian attitude towards it ^{[3, p.190-198]}.

   In modern ecological history, the natural environment is often represented as an active spontaneous participant, with whom humanity, in the face of increasing environmental problems, will have to learn to cooperate rather than fight, as has been continuously happening since the Neolithic revolution ^{[15, p. 307-308]}. The predecessors of this line of research were works on local natural disasters in isolated ecosystems, where human-induced changes eventually turned against him. In the context of globalization, the need to take into account this historical experience is justified by the scale of the growing problems, in line with which the entire ecosystem of the planet will have to endure the fate of the lost isolated communities. In examples of the impact of climatic, geological, and biological phenomena on the economy, politics, and cultural environment, eco-historians note that even wars are unable to match the role of natural factors in terms of the degree of influence on the course of social development ^{[14, p. 1-4]}. 

    The key task of environmental history is to study examples and conceptualize the positive experience of cooperation between man and nature on the basis of enriching each other. The peculiarity of American historiography of this trend is expressed in the thesis that the strategy of economic cooperation with nature is the result of cultural and ideological choice. Mythological, religious, artistic, scientific concepts, etc. reflect and are based on environmental management practices, therefore, their differentiation seems ridiculous. Extensive and predatory economic practices invariably expressed themselves in various varieties of the concept of "man – the king of nature". This ultimately destructive self-identification must be overcome. With the completion of industrialization, humanity has become a "geological agent" from a "biological agent", that is, human activity is no longer limited to influencing the biological environment, but has expanded to a planetary scale by influencing climatic conditions: "For centuries, scientists have thought that Earth's processes are so big and powerful that there is nothing we can do to change them. This was the basic principle of geological science: that human chronologies are insignificant compared to the vastness of geological time; that human activity is insignificant compared to the power of geological processes.  And once they were.  But no more.  There are so many of us now that we are cutting down so many trees and burning so many billions of tons of fossil fuels that we have really become geological agents.  We have changed the chemical composition of our atmosphere, which has led to sea level rise, ice melting and climate change. There is no reason to think otherwise" ^{[10, p.206]}. Defining itself as a "geological agent", humanity, based on previous experience of changing its biological environment, must fully realize the possible consequences of its activities in a new capacity.

       Eco-historians are wondering: how is it possible to talk about global processes without correlating them with the process of global climate change? They formulate a new version of a Large Narrative expressed in the concept of eco-humanism, which they consider to be the most complete example of historical synthesis and historical experience. Historical and ecological thought is given a leading role in the development and implementation of liberal ideas that are not viable in the context of global catastrophes, as well as the role of constructive criticism of capitalism, the further development of which can no longer be carried out by extracting excess profits without regard to the consequences and guided by national selfishness. Ecology has no nationality, its problems and its history are common.  The United States, as the leader of global processes, should by all means promote the eco-agenda for the rest of the powerful industrial countries, whose economic activities continue to be extensive and proceed without sufficient awareness of the possible consequences for the entire planet ^{[23, p. 16-19, 34-36]}.

     Legal historians in the United States, as well as lawyers, have traditionally been divided into those who put the "letter" or "spirit" of the law at the forefront, focusing either on a retrospective analysis of the implementation of legal norms, or on studying the role of precedents in the development of civil, political, and economic systems. Since the 90s of the last century, world legal thought began to experience a so-called "historical turn", which was expressed by the appearance of a large number of works on the analysis of a variety of historical ways of legitimizing legal foundations, norms, institutions, etc. American lawyers and historians were also active participants in this process. The legal history has been enriched by studies of various ways of fighting for human rights, works on the historical features of the professional practices of lawyers, on revealing in specific situations the relationship between customs and laws that determined the rationality of judicial decisions. The key thesis of pragmatic legal history was the definition of legal holes as means of social transformation, rather than their goals, which were outlined by the founding fathers and which must be steadily followed.

      There are three reasons, and relevant research topics, why legal practices are considered as an important, sometimes even fundamental, element of the existence of a national social structure.

      Firstly, the polymorphic nature of the American state and society prevents the formulation of any more significant universal signs of national identity than civil ones. Being an American means, first of all, living in the constitutional space of the United States. Correlating the development of legal and social systems, legal historians assign a causal role to the acquisition of legal awareness in the self-determination and formation of social groups. In the struggle for their rights, blacks, women, and workers sought to create the necessary laws and amendments for themselves, as a result of which their identity and active civic role were formed. On the contrary, significant legislative acts have not been carried out in relation to such groups as, for example, the Amish, hippies or Asian migrants, which does not allow them to be defined as full-fledged subjects of the social system. Thus, the practices of the struggle for rights and the experience of legal awareness are the key constructs of the strata of American society that have acquired legitimacy.

     Secondly, the contradictions of private and state forms of ownership run through the entire history of the United States. In this aspect, the role of legal practices in the development of economic relations is studied. The modern definition of a lawyer, notary, legal adviser designates them as independent experts and intermediaries between private and public interests, whose activities are aimed at resolving conflicts in a legal framework [7. p. 1059-1061]. Legal historians depict legal acts as triggers of economic transformations ^{[17, p.188-189]}. For example, it may be considered how the increase in the number of independent lawyers who opposed themselves to corporate servants influenced the liberalization of the market and the restriction of monopolistic arbitrariness. Or how, with the advent of free legal defense in court, the poor segments of the population involved in economic relations have increased.   

   Thirdly, the distinctive judicial system of the United States, in which, thanks to the doctrine of precedents, the courts have legislative initiative, is the most fundamental institution for maintaining continental harmonization. American lawyers interpret laws not as rules of an ordered type, but as reasonable regulations, the degree of rationality of which is checked by the practice of precedents. When making decisions, lower courts are obliged to take into account similar precedents in higher courts, which is a condition for the correct interpretation of laws and the unity of the legal system. Referring to the national authority of judicial decisions, legal historians assign to precedents the role of prerequisites for many important events that reveal their essence. Judicial decisions against the decrees of George III, which are inconsistent with the constitutional customs of Great Britain, as prerequisites for the struggle for Independence; judicial decisions on the property rights of blacks in public service as prerequisites for the abolition of slavery, etc. The practice of precedents is considered in the form of a process of establishing a measure of the usefulness of laws, their compliance with the requirements of the time. Its role is to ensure the flexibility and vitality of the American civil and political system ^{[27, p. 1-4, 21-23]}.

    The coverage of events and processes in their legal aspect creates a picture of the integrity and unity of U.S. history. Unlike the tradition of European historical schools of law, where laws metaphysically embody the "spirit of the nation", American colleagues see national identity in the distinctive legal system and the peculiarities of its regulating legal practices. Some traditionalists complain that the predominance of a pragmatic attitude towards legal norms, which began since the time of the New Deal, makes them historically conditional, and that the provisions of the Constitution, which go back to natural law, lose their significance ^{[13, p. VII-X]}. However, an analysis of specific examples of legal decisions shows that, depending on changes in conditions, outdated norms dating back to the founding fathers are more likely to be updated than canceled altogether. Lawyers should invariably substantiate their activities with references to the right of ownership, the right of freedom of contract or the right of individual freedom, thus legitimizing their acts. 

                                                        Conclusion.

      With the development of the philosophy of pragmatism, the research priorities of American historians, who perceived its ideological and methodological attitudes, were adjusted. Initially, pragmatism was used by them to justify national identity. Next, to determine the specifics of the path of American modernization. At the moment, pragmatism is used to characterize the features of the organization and ways of functioning of public spheres of life in the United States.

    The absence of fundamentalism in pragmatism has always been a reason for criticism of its inability to serve as a meaningful system of views, and its provisions have been given applied significance. However, it is precisely due to this property, combined with the conceptual elaboration of the categories of practice and experience, that pragmatism was able to provide the most adequate response to the "postmodern challenge" of the rationalist tradition. And on the basis of once secondary topics (the cultural role of migrants, "non-historical" social groups, local environmental disasters, legal practices, etc.), new options for the synthesis of historical knowledge, subject fields and models of Large narratives have been formed.

    Has the dream of objectivity, which P. Novik suggested, been lost and replaced by pragmatics? Modern historical research of a significant part of scientists striving for scientific results has positive features in terms of reducing the level of, on the one hand, ideological rhetoric, and, on the contrary, "revealing" skepticism. The leading criterion of objectivity was the level of reflection of historians in relation to the prerequisites of their own conclusions and the peculiarities of research practices ^{[8, p. 281-283]}. In the combination of motive-method-result in pragmatism, the key role is assigned to the second. Accordingly, historians sympathetic to pragmatism, determining the objectivity of the work of their predecessors, first of all turn to the analysis of research methods, and not to the personal attitudes of the authors or the definition of criteria for the truth of the results. Such an understanding of objectivity may seem limited, but one cannot but recognize the role of pragmatism in objecting to the interest in the methodology of history, which not so long ago was sometimes called the "fifth wheel" of the discipline.

     It is also necessary to touch directly on the criticism of the concepts of a pragmatic turn in social and humanitarian knowledge, and in historiography in particular. It basically boils down to two arguments. Firstly, the concept of experience is too multifaceted, so its use turns into constructivism. Secondly, the practices of everyday life are so diverse that it is not possible to deduce from their totality a complete picture of the historical development of society.

     Indeed, one of the main qualities characterizing modern historical research in the United States is social constructivism. Constructivism assumes the impossibility of defining the line between the objectification of reality as a result of cognitive activity and reality itself. Hence, conclusions are drawn about the revival and almost omnipresence of presentism in historical science, put at the service of the concepts of multiculturalism, inclusive capitalism, eco-humanism and exemplary democracy represented by the United States. But this criticism exaggeratedly defines constructivism in the form of the creation of certain constructs from historical material, implying their far-fetched and artificial nature. In fact, having become disillusioned with the correspondent theory of truth, historians tend to keep in mind the line between their ideas about the past and the past itself. Constructivism plays the role of a fallibilistic attitude that certain aspects of their work will invariably contain constructivist features, which, in turn, does not exclude further search for more objective results. Presentism, in the updated perspectivist understanding, does not mean "politics tipped into the past", but the use of the experience of the past for the needs of the present. For example, take into account the historical experience of introducing the black population to American values and use it in solving new forms of migration problems.

   As for the issue of the integrity of historical representations in the context of deepening specialization and fragmentation of research activities, it should be noted that the pragmatic turn has contributed to the revival of historians' interest in sociological theories, and the study of the diversity of practices ultimately boils down to the analysis of their sociological aspect. Whether we are talking about the dynamics of gender, ethnic, environmental, legal and other processes, their causes and consequences are revealed in the form of structural properties of the social system. Thus, history is once again given the definition of a discipline that studies social development, or rather the ways of this development.