Перегляд за Автор "Omelchenko Andrii"

Зараз показуємо 1 - 1 з 1
  • Документ
    The Problematic of Religious Transformations in the Early Modern Period
    (2025) Omelchenko Andrii; Омельченко Андрій
    The aim of the study is to identify and analytically interpret the key problems involved in understanding religious transformations of the early modern period, as well as to determine the explanatory potential and limitations of the principal historiographical models applied to their analysis.The methodological strategy is based on the principles of comparative analysis, contextualisation, and historicisation. Comparative analysis is employed to juxtapose different interpretative models in a regional perspective, demonstrating the asynchronous and polycentric nature of religious change. Contextualisation is used to interpret religious phenomena within specific social and political settings, thereby avoiding excessive generalisation. Historicisation provides a critical examination of the very terms and categories employed, revealing their dependence on scholarly traditions and academic paradigms.The scientific novelty of the research lies in the systematisation and comparative assessment of the leading interpretative approaches to early modern religious transformations, which are typically examined in isolation. The study demonstrates that different models operate with distinct definitions of “religiosity,” thus producing incompatible trajectories for explaining religious change. It also highlights the polycentric and asynchronous character of early modern religious processes and proposes an integrative perspective capable of accounting for their multilayered structure.Based on the analysis, the study concludes that religious transformations of the early modern era constitute a multidimensional and uneven process that cannot be fully explained within the confines of a single interpretative model. A comparison of intellectual, institutional, social, and cultural approaches shows that each employs different criteria for defining religiosity and therefore constructs incompatible chronological and analytical frameworks. Taking methodological diversity into account makes it possible to describe more accurately the complexity of religious change in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and to reject uniform explanatory schemes in favour of a multilevel analytical perspective.