中国家庭史国际学术讨论会述评

近一个时期以来 ,随着社会史学的蓬勃发展 ,历史学者对中国家庭的历史产生了日益浓厚的研究兴趣 ,并逐渐取代社会学家和人类学家 ,成为家庭史研究的主要力量。为了总结已有的成果 ,开拓历史学的家庭史研究思路和视野 ,加强同行学者之间的对话、交流与合作 ,进一步推动这一学术领域的深入发展 ,南开大学中国社会史研究中心联合南开大学历史学院、《历史研究》编辑部、 (日本 )河合文化教育研究所和天津师范大学妇女研究中心等单位 ,于 2 0 0 2年 8月 10日至 12日在天津共同举办了“中国家庭史国际学术讨论会” ,倡导整体、综合、动态、多学科…     

《中国家庭史·辽宋金元时期》评介

由张国刚教授主编的《中国家庭史》（五卷本,广东人民出版社2007年版）,是目前所见第一部以贯穿中国千年文明社会的家庭作为研究对象的通史性著作。与以往相关论著不同的是,主编希望特征鲜明地显现“历史学”的“家庭史”。在这一学术理念下,本书既在观察视角上注意了法制史、经济史、社会史三个维度,又在内容上进行了精心编排,意在对各个历史时期的家庭有一个全方位的描述,并且“向读者提供基本的历史知识”。     

《宋代家庭研究》评介

邢铁先生的《宋代家庭研究》,是其十几年来倾力探索宋代家庭问题的成果,作为“中国家庭、家族、宋族研究系列丛书”之一,已由上海人民出版社于2005年2月出版。全书共计25.7万字,由宋代家庭史研究述评(代绪论)和上中下三篇正文组成,绪论部分从九个方面回顾了中国家庭史研究的状况,为人们了解宋代家庭的总体特征提供了知识背景。上篇对宋代家庭类型与家庭人际关系进行探讨,中篇从户等制度入手考察了各个阶层的家庭经济状况,下篇具体研究了家产继承的几种方式。这本书在综合已有研究成果的基础上颇多创新之处,主要表现在以下几个方面:一、提出…     

变迁还是延续——欧美学者关于英国社会转型时期的家庭史研究

一随着20世纪50年代“新社会史”的兴起和60年代“家庭危机”的出现,家庭史研究在西方迅速发展,到20世纪80年代末,家庭史学已成为西方历史研究中的一门显学。家庭演变与西欧社会近代转型和工业化进程的关系尤其引起史家的浓厚兴趣。英国作为工业革命的发源地和第一个工业化国家     

冰山解冻的第一滴水——明清时期家庭与社会中的男女两性

把家庭称作社会的“细胞”，似乎已是一个约定俗成的说法。尽管正如我们的欧洲家庭史研究的同行正确地指出的，这是一个正确性很有限的概念（《欧洲家庭史》中译本第４页，华夏出版社１９８７年出版），我们还是可以使用它，因为分析两性关系，家庭抑或家族无疑是个很好的。出发点。以血缘纽带为特征的宗法制度确立于西周，但正如有的学者指出的，在中国进入文明时代时，维系氏族部落的血缘关系并未遭到破坏，“农业生产的基本组织形式还是以血缘关系为纽结的农村公社”，西周的宗法制无非是这种原始血缘关系与社会政治等级关系的结合，甚至…     

唐代西州女性家庭生活探微——以吐鲁番砖志为中心

家庭是绝大多数妇女唯一可能有深度参与的生活领域,对了解过往的女性而言,家庭史的研究有很高的重要性。本文以吐鲁番地区出土的唐西州女性墓志为中心,探析唐代西州女性的角色定位、道德规范及在此框架之内的家庭生活情况。     

塔德莫教授在南京大学讲学

2008年5月7日至8日,英国著名家庭史学家、苏塞克斯大学塔德莫(Naomi Tadmor)教授应邀在南京大学历史系作了关于英国家庭史研究的讲座.     

评《英国社会转型时期的家庭研究》——兼谈西方家庭史研究中的“变革与延续之争”

家庭史研究最早起源于西方,它可以追溯到1861年瑞士人类学家巴霍芬发表<母权论>,以及稍后美国人类学家摩尔根的<古代社会>(1877年)和恩格斯的<家庭、私有制和国家的起源>(1884年)等论著的面世.但作为一个现代意义上的专门的学术研究领域,家庭史学是伴随着西方"新史学",尤其是20世纪50年代兴起的强调普通人在历史中作用的"新社会史"的出现而开始受到重视,同时它也是西方社会发展变化的产物.     

保·拉法格对家庭史研究的贡献

保尔·拉法格(1842～1911年)这位法国工人运动家,对哲学、经济学、语言学、文艺学,历史学等方面都有精湛的研究,他对家庭史也做过深入的探讨。他早在1884年以前就钻研了家庭史的名著:泰罗的《人类早期历史的探讨》,巴霍芬的《母权论》,麦克伦南的     

第三次“美国华人家庭史”专题讨论会在旧金山召开

1989年10年28日,“美国曾氏宗亲会”、“旧金山华人文化中心”和“美国华人历史学会”在旧金山华人文化中心联合举办了题为“美国华人家庭史和族谱学”的专题讨论会,80位有关人士参加了这次会议。这种会议在旧金山湾地区是第一次,在全美则是第三次。第一次是1983年由“南加州华人历史学会”和“亚裔美国人研究中心”在UCLA举办的题为“美国华人家庭史”的讨论会。第二次是1985年由夏威夷     

CHRONOCENOSIS: HOW TO IMAGINE THE MULTIPLICITY OF TEMPORALITIES WITHOUT LOSING THE EMPHASIS ON POWER AND CONFLICTS

The twentieth century witnessed the historicization of the categories of time and space. Instead of functioning as a universal category, moving from the past to the present and from the present to the future, time has multiplied into temporalities, and historians have looked for adequate metaphors to describe this multiplicity, its many ways of moving forward and backward, its acceleration and decelerations, its entanglements, and its conflicts and struggles for hegemony. The editors of Power and Time: Temporalities in Conflict and the Making of History offer a thought-provoking concept by translating biocenosis, the coexistence of different species in the same environment, to time studies and thus using the term “chronocenosis” to refer to different temporalities sharing the same embattled space. The volume covers a large variety of case studies—ranging from early modern Chinese historical novels to attempts to bring together social and biological time in the discussion of the Anthropocene—and draws together disciplines that are not usually discussed in studies of temporalities, disciplines ranging from law to the history of science.     

1. THE DEFINING CHARACTER OF CHINESE HISTORICAL THINKING1

Imbued with profound historical consciousness, the Chinese people are Homo historiens in every sense of the term. To be human in China, to a very large extent, is to be historical, which means to live up to the paradigmatic past. Therefore, historical thinking in traditional China is moral thinking. The Chinese historico‐moral thinking centers around the notion of Dao, a notion that connotes both Heavenly principle and human norm. In view of its practical orientation, Chinese historical thinking is, on the one hand, concrete thinking and, on the other, analogical thinking. Thinking concretely and analogically, the Chinese people are able to communicate with the past and to extrapolate meanings from history. In this way, historical experience in China becomes a library in which modern readers may engage in creative dialogues with the past.     

FROM REVOLUTION TO MODERNIZATION: THE PARADIGMATIC TRANSITION IN CHINESE HISTORIOGRAPHY IN THE REFORM ERA

Chinese historiography of modern China in the 1980s and 1990s underwent a paradigmatic transition: in place of the traditional revolutionary historiography that bases its analyses on Marxist methodologies and highlights rebellions and revolutions as the overarching themes in modern Chinese history, the emerging modernization paradigm builds its conceptual framework on borrowed modernization theory and foregrounds top‐down, incremental reforms as the main force propelling China's evolution to modernity. This article scrutinizes the origins of the new paradigm in the context of a burgeoning modernization discourse in reform‐era China. It further examines the fundamental divides between the two types of historiography in their respective constructions of master narratives and their different approaches to representing historical events in modern China. Behind the prevalence of the modernization paradigm in Chinese historiography is Chinese historians' unchanged commitment to serving present political needs by interpreting the past.     

Deferring to Vichy in the Western Hemisphere: The St Pierre and Miquelon Affair of 1941

This article argues that commentators such as Will Hutton might be somewhat premature in their forecast of an imminent collapse of the Chinese economy as a principal mechanism of general global economic downturn. Long-term predictions surely require some long-term data from the real historical past? The author argues more specifically that in recent history the turning points in the Chinese political economy tend to come from technological and related problems within that economy itself, rather than through political pressures arising from outside China. It follows that Chinese political transition awaits further economic development and its association with the emergence of a new phase of technological progress. This approach differs from that of the ‘adaptive governance’ analysts, who argue that evolution of political regimes may be traced through linkages between contemporary political processes and the ‘revolutionary precedents’ of the 1920s. Instead the author considers a continuous history of technological exigencies into the present time as the effective stimulants of regime changes.     

Towards a Transpacific Archaeology of the Modern World

The historical archaeology of overseas Chinese communities is a rapidly growing subfield. Although historical archaeology is not widely practiced in China, there are well-developed interdiscipinary research centers that investigate the history and culture of migrants’ qiaoxiang (hometown) societies. Scholars in American Studies programs throughout Asia are also bringing new perspectives to the study of Chinese migration past and present. By collaborating with these scholars, archaeologists on the Chinese Railroad Workers in North America Project are developing new chronological, geographic, spatial, and material frameworks for the interpretation of overseas Chinese archaeological sites and landscapes.     

Historicism and constructionism: rival ideas of historical change

ABSTRACT

A seemingly unitary appeal to history might evoke today two incompatible operations of historicization that yield contradictory results. This article attempts to understand two co-existing senses of historicity as conflicting ideas of historical change and rival practices of temporal comparison: historicism and constructionism. At their respective births, both claimed to make sense of the world and ourselves as changing over time. Historicism, dominating nineteenth-century Western thought and overseeing the professionalization of historical studies, advocated an understanding of the present condition of the human world as developing out of past conditions. Constructionism, dominating the second half of the twentieth century, understood the present condition as the recent invention of certain ‘historical’ environments, without prior existence. As competing ideas of historical change, they both entail a comparison between past and present conditions of their investigated subjects, but their practices of temporal comparison are irreconcilable and represent two distinct ways of historicization.     

FUTURE BY HISTORY: RETHINKING PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

Philosophy of history has a threefold dimension: material, formal, and functional, which have largely been conceptualized as mutually exclusive. It is high time to mediate them into a coherent relationship, and Rohbeck's book is a decisive step toward such a new philosophy of history. The book is divided into three parts: the first deals with the relationship between history and the future, the second analyzes the relationship between history and ethics, and the third synthesizes these two aspects into a pragmatics of history. With regard to the first part, historical thinking is based on a perception of temporal otherness related to the past. Rohbeck prolongs the time perspective by bridging this time gap into the future. As to the second, Rohbeck replaces teleology by ethics. Teleology includes ethics but limits its scope to a one‐sided development. Ethics allows many more options. Finally, who is the agent for historical ethics? Rohbeck proposes the “generation” as the basic actor in historical change and the addressee of ethical commitment. At the end of his work, Rohbeck draws consequences for the idea of philosophy of history from his idea of historical ethics. He shows that history has a new perspective if it is viewed through the lens of ethical elements in the fundamental relationship between past, present, and future. Of course, many questions follow this fascinating new version of the old philosophy of history. I raise only three of them: (1) What synthesizes the three dimensions of time into one and the same history? (2) Did we not learn from historicism that values in ethics have an inbuilt temporality? This argument does not run against the idea of an ethics of history, but should sharpen its genuine historical character. (3) Who is the agent of this change: who brings it about and at the same is subjected to it? An anonymous sum of generations in space and time is not a convincing answer. We need an integrative idea that covers the vast field of experience of the human world in space and time and that covers the strong commitment to universal values. In this respect it would be worthwhile to pick up the idea of humankind as it was conceptualized as the red thread of history in traditional, modern philosophy of history.     

重构、建构与解构之间——从文学形式论史学类型与史学性质

凯斯·詹金斯和艾伦·穆斯洛将当代西方史学界对于历史学性质问题的立场划分为重构主义、建构主义、解构主义三种分野。重构主义强调历史知识与过去实在相符合的客观性与真理性,相信史家具有以历史叙事的方式重建过去的技能;建构主义主张历史在根本层面上依旧是对过去的摹写,但在经验事实之外需要借助其他学科的理论和方法,以期实现对总体历史的建构;解构主义则指出了过去与历史之间、真实与叙述之间、实在与语言之间联结的脆弱性,主张以解构历史编纂学的方式透析过去如何被编制为各种历史。这种史学类型的划分本身即蕴涵了后现代主义的基本理论立场与实际指涉,从中可以更加清晰地辨识其对历史学性质问题挑战的核心范围与思想取向。     

Memory and History: Liturgical Time and Historical Time

This article investigates the differential structure and representation of time in memory and history. It examines two moments in Jewish historical thought—in the Middle Ages, and in works written within and after the Holocaust—and demonstrates the fundamentally liturgical nature of Jewish historical memory in selected texts from these two periods. Following the groundbreaking work of Yerushalmi, it seeks to demonstrate that for Jews, historical experience is incorporated into the cyclical reenactment of paradigmatic events in Jewish sacred ritual. Recent or contemporary experiences acquire meaning only insofar as they can be subsumed within Biblical categories of events and their interpretation bequeathed to the community through the medium of Scripture, that is to say, only insofar as they can be transfigured, ritually and liturgically, into repetitions and reenactments of ancient happening. In such liturgical commemoration, the past exists only by means of recitation; the fundamental goal of such recitation is to make it live again in the present, to fuse past and present, chanter and hearer, into a single collective entity. History, in the sense that we understand it to consist of unique events unfolding within irreversible linear time, is absorbed into cyclical, liturgical memory.
This article argues that the question of Jewish history—both medieval and post-Holocaust—poses in a compelling fashion the question of the relationship between memory and history more generally, and serves to contest the current tendency in academic historiography to collapse history into memory. It claims that to the extent that memory "resurrects,""re-cycles," and makes the past "reappear" and live again in the present, it cannot perform historically, since it refuses to keep the past in the past, to draw the line, as it were, that is constitutive of the modern enterprise of historiography.     

5. PAST AND “PRESENCE”: REVISITING HISTORICAL ONTOLOGY

The last thirty years have brought about a fundamental revision of historical epistemology. So intense a concentration on the nature of history as a form of inquiry has diminished attention given to the thing that history inquires into: the nature of the past itself. Too readily, that entire domain has turned into a place for dreams, as Hayden White put it: a lost world only available now through the imagination of the author and subject to aesthetic whim. The next thirty years will, I propose, be the period in which ontology returns to the center of historical theory. And nothing short of the reconceptualization of the past—indeed of time itself—must be its objective. It must achieve that objective, moreover, in establishing arguments that are congruent with what revisions of epistemology have taught us about the limits of historical knowledge and the inevitability of textual representation. This paper enters this field by discussing some of the issues involved in rethinking the place of time in historical constructions since Bergson. It demonstrates the confusions inherent in spatial reductions of temporality, which historians have done so much to entrench rather than eradicate, and argues that historians have yet to accommodate the fundamental conceptual shifts inaugurated by heidegger. It then moves to propose a methodological doctrine to which I have given the name “chronism” and seeks to sketch the utility of such a doctrine for bringing one form of presence—that of authenticity—back into the domain of historical study. Doing so invites a number of conceptual and practical difficulties that the paper will address in its conclusions; these may disturb those who have closed their minds to anything beyond the present. Taking ontology seriously interferes both with structuralist assumptions about the nothingness of time and with some of the styles of historical representation that have become fashionable in the postmodern climate. There may be painful lessons to be learned if we are to rescue the past from its current status as a nonentity.