Srogosz T
Med Nowozytna. 1999;6(1):7-24.
This article provides criticism of Z. Kuchowicz's research program which aimed at direct determination of history in terms of biological factors and the natural environment. A model of explaining the biological dimension of history on the basis of modern methodological assumptions of historiographic trends has been proposed, in particular F. Braudel's concept of global history (temporal categories), historical anthropology, M. Foucault's theory of discourse and postmodernism (microhistory). The choice of theory depended on its reception by historians, feasibility for the purposes of medical historiography, subjective attitude, and individual attempts to take into account different methodological assumptions. Modern historiographic trends create an opportunity for the research on the biological existence of the man in the history, they put the biological existence and the natural environment in a position, which can be even regarded as privileged. It is essential to depart from the traditional, even-directed historiography or not to restrict oneself exclusively to research postulates or theoretical works, but to highlight specific and new issues and conduct source studies in that area.
本文对Z. 库乔维茨的研究计划提出了批评，该计划旨在从生物因素和自然环境的角度直接确定历史。基于历史编纂趋势的现代方法论假设，提出了一种解释历史生物学维度的模型，特别是费尔南·布罗代尔的全球史概念（时间范畴）、历史人类学、米歇尔·福柯的话语理论和后现代主义（微观史）。理论的选择取决于历史学家对其的接受程度、医学史学目的的可行性、主观态度以及考虑不同方法论假设的个人尝试。现代历史编纂趋势为研究历史中人类的生物存在创造了机会，它们将生物存在和自然环境置于一个甚至可被视为特权的地位。必须摒弃传统的、单向的历史编纂学，或者不仅限于研究假设或理论著作，而是要突出特定的新问题，并在该领域进行史料研究。
