G. V. Kasyanov, O. P. Tolochko* The article is an analytical report adapted for the journal format, which deals with the challenges and difficulties on the way to writing a new academic synthesis of the history of Ukraine. Directing the polemic against national history as a way of organizing knowledge about the past, its limitations and defects, the authors discuss some other types of Writing and understanding of history that can be useful in the practical implementation of the idea. The course of work on the concept of a new synthesis of the history of Ukraine revealed several problems, the solution of which depends on the success of the main idea - to ensure the appearance of such a generalizing version, which in methodological and content terms would qualitatively differ from the previous ones and at the same time be intellectually compatible with the trends of historiography widespread in Western science. This article is a journal-adapted version of an analytical note prepared for the working group that worked at the Institute of History of Ukraine of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine in 2010 to develop the concept of a multi-volume history of Ukraine. The authors were guided by a rather utilitarian task-to outline the possibilities of national history as a way of organizing knowledge about the past, as well as to outline possible ways to overcome its limitations. We are not talking about a fundamental historiographical essay or a deep theoretical treatise. Our task is to start a discussion about the prospects of writing a synthesis of the history of Ukraine outside the canons of the master narrative. National history as a way of describing the past Such a distinct genre of historiography as national history is a fairly recent discovery, it has existed for less than two centuries. Previous (European) historical literature knew quite different ways of organizing the past. Significantly simplifying them, they can be divided into universal stories, where ... Читать далее