试论近代欧洲民族主义及其史学的浪漫主义渊源——以德国为讨论中心

近代欧洲民族主义和民族主义史学的产生,是浪漫主义运动在历史和政治领域的反映。浪漫主义对情感、历史连续性、独特性和整体性的强调,是民族主义产生的思想和情感基础。在启蒙运动、法国大革命和拿破仑战争的影响下,欧洲各国历史学家对本民族的历史、文化传统和命运进行深入的研究,形成了民族主义史学。浪漫主义对个体独特性以及个体与整体协调发展思想的强调,使早期民族主义和世界主义在根本上保持一致。     

后现代主义史学的理论与实践

后现代主义史学理论对自启蒙运动以来形成的传统史学理论产生了巨大的冲击。后现代主义史学理论质疑历史认识客体的真实性,强调语言对历史建构的决定性意义,把历史文本等同于文学虚构。后现代主义史学理论对于反思传统史学理论有重要的意义,然而其所表现出的相对主义和反实在论特点,也颇受人们的质疑。近年来,西方学者开始试图建构一种超越后现代主义史学理论的范式,即所谓后-后现代主义史学理论。反思后现代主义史学理论,也是我国学者一直关注的问题。本期"历史理论"栏目发表刘华初副教授讨论后现代主义史学理论及其实践的文章,欢迎学者们参与对此问题的讨论。     

“中外史学理论与史学史”学术研讨会综述

<正>2014年11月15日,由北京师范大学史学理论与史学史研究中心、历史学院和北京市历史学会联合举办的"中外史学理论与史学史"学术研讨会在北京同春园饭店举行。来自北京地区高校和科研机构的三十余位学者,以及《历史研究》、《史学月刊》和《人大复印资料》等期刊的专家参加了本次会议。在会议上,专家学者对"唯物史观与历史研究"、"中西史学理论的比较与沟通"、"历史视野与历史研究方法"、"后现代主义史学"等方面的问题进行了深入讨论。     

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。     

《世纪之交的西方史学》出版

世纪之交,西方史学发生了两次重要转折。一次是20世纪70年代以后后现代主义的出场,它催生了新史学分支学科和新研究视角的出现,这些新学科包括:历史人类学、微观史学、女性主义史学、后殖民主义史学以及环境史等;90年代前后,冷战的结束、苏联的解体、全球化在经济和移民方     

跨文化视角、马克思主义与当代史学主要趋势——对话王晴佳教授

首都师范大学历史学院的林漫和邓家力于2015年7月22日对北京大学长江学者王晴佳教授进行了学术访谈。访谈主要围绕着"近二十年西方史学理论研究与历史书写"的项目内容展开,包括当前西方史学的发展趋势、世纪之交西方史学理论的变化及其对历史书写的影响、西方马克思主义史学、跨文化历史研究等方面的问题。王教授在访谈中提出,当前史学有两大平行发展的潮流,但其共同之处在于突破近代西方为我们建立的知识架构;后现代主义并非被超越了,而是很多观念已经被内化于历史研究中;马克思主义的生命力在于对现代社会和现代性的批判,这与后现代主义有一定关联,对后现代主义的认识需要从其产生的社会条件出发,这是一种唯物史观的方法;跨文化研究对当前的历史写作是一个较好的切入点,可以提出很多新的选题;全球史研究不能停留在理论层面的讨论,而需以具体的历史写作展开大量的实践性研究;在中外史学交流中仍然存在着"不对称"的问题。现将访谈内容刊发以飨读者。     

论麦考莱的浪漫主义史学思想

麦考莱是19世纪中叶英国著名的浪漫主义历史学家。他的浪漫主义史学思想受到了司各特历史小说的重要影响。麦考莱认为历史学是诗歌与哲学,理性与想象的结合。追求历史学的艺术性和强调想象的作用是麦考莱浪漫主义史学思想的突出特征。为了使历史作品鲜活生动,他运用了文学手法来写作历史。他借鉴小说的手法,重视历史的细节和场景描写;使用通俗剧和传奇的手法来表现历史;对历史人物的刻画带有个人的感情倾向,流露出明显的道德评判色彩和一定的党派偏见。麦考莱的历史想象以历史事实为基础。他的历史著作的艺术性决定了它的长久价值,他的浪漫主义史学思想对英国史学界影响深远。     

白寿彝先生与新中国建立初期的中国马克思主义史学

新中国成立后白寿彝先生很快转向对马克思主义理论的学习和对中国马克思主义史学的研究中,他在强调历史研究中的爱国主义、重视中国历史上的少数民族史研究以及对中国封建社会生产关系方面的研究等方面,在当时都产生了很大影响。白寿彝先生积极探索历史教学中的中国通史教学方法,既充实了中国马克思主义史学的历史教学内容,也为他日后的中国通史撰述创造了条件。他对史学史学科理论的阐述,为马克思主义史学语境下的中国史学史研究打下了坚实的基础。白寿彝先生在新中国建立初期的学术成就,为中国马克思主义史学主导地位的确立作出了重要贡献。     

后现代主义与历史研究

后现代主义的史学理论既有偏激、消极的东西,也有合理、积极的成分。它促使人们思考历史观中的一些基本问题,把握历史的复杂性。后现代主义的史学理论和实践可为中国历史研究提供以下启示：注意范式转换;超越西方与中国、中心与边缘的二元对立;发掘新对象、新材料;重视微观考察和小型叙事,加强区域社会史研究;引入与自然共生的理念,开展人口、资源和环境史研究。     

漆侠先生对马克思主义史学理论与方法的运用

漆侠先生是当代著名的历史学家,不仅在中国古代史研究尤其是宋史研究的诸多领域建树丰硕,而且对于史学理论与方法也形成了较为系统的见解:对史学的学科性质、研究对象、史学功能等史学本体问题提出看法;重视史料的搜集整理与分析审查,强调文学作品的史料价值;提出马克思主义方法是史学研究的最高层次研究方法,考据方法是基本方法,并重视对马克思主义史学考据方法的建设;强调了历史研究主体的素养特别是“史德“问题的重要性,提出了献身史学的治史精神。     

LEVINAS,HISTORY, AND HISTORIOGRAPHY

In this book Anton Froeyman has provided us with a colorful and intriguing account of a Levinasian approach to historical inquiry and historical writing. In my discussion of his book I describe central features of his account and notice how he uses, to develop his view, recent developments in historiography—including the work of figures like Natalie Davis and Carlo Ginzburg, in philosophical thinking about history and historiography, and in various postmodern developments. I sketch central features of Levinas's ethical metaphysics and show that Froeyman's focus on Levinas's interest in our relations with other persons and in particular with their relative differences from us is too narrow. A proper understanding of our infinite responsibility to and for all others, as Levinas portrays it, leads to a broader account than the one Froeyman gives and one that enables us to understand with greater clarity how historiography fits into the Levinasian understanding of our temporal and interpersonal relations with others.     

《吴越春秋》说略

《吴越春秋》是一部很有特色的古代史学著作。是书有很高的史料价值,在编纂体例和历史文学方面都有一定成就,对于了解春秋时吴、越争霸历史,增长人们有关历史知识,从历史中吸取智慧是很有用的。作为汉代史著能流传到现在,这个事实本身似乎也可以说明它确有其存在价值。     

HISTORY,AFRICA, AND DEFAMILIARIZATION: A COMMENT

After initially identifying defamiliarization as a central aspect of Nancy Rose Hunt's essay “History as Form,” this comment reflects on the implications that her reading of Georg Simmel and her emphasis on objects and materiality have for the writing of history. If Hunt suggests, with Simmel, that the form of history is autonomous from history as it unfolds, the claim here is rather that there is no necessary relationship between writing and its topic. Considering how earlier European historiography excluded Africa (in particular) from the domain of history, it is no coincidence that this contingent relation between form and history has been particularly energizing for Africanist historiography—leading to innovations both in practice and theory. The comment concludes by briefly discussing three concepts that have informed such innovation: the vernacular, suturing, and multiple temporalities.     

柳诒徵论中国传统史学的治史原则与方法

柳诒徵作为中国现代文化保守主义史学大师结合西方新史学思想,对中国传统史学做了大量阐述。他对中国传统治史原则和方法的阐述尤为丰富和精深,主要包括五方面:一、"治史之必本于德"的原则;二、国史书写的道德评判准则;三、史识与史德、史法的关系和治史重在求取史识;四、注重史事普遍联系的史学记载和表述;五、正确看待考据在治史中的地位和作用。这些史学思想体现了柳诒徵史学通贯古今和兼融中西的基本特征。     

POSTCOLONIALITY AND THE TWO SITES OF HISTORICITY

This essay examines the two sites of historicity, namely history‐writing and historical agency, and their interrelationship. I borrow the idea of “sites of historicity” from historian Michel‐Rolph Trouillot's Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (1995). For the purpose of analyzing how the relationship between the two sites changes with time and context, using Trouillot's theoretical lens, I examine the philosophies of history of Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel. By citing instances from these two philosophers, I claim that with the rise of nineteenth‐century colonialism, the two sites of historicity became discursively related in a specific way, whereby historical agency came to be predicated on history‐writing. Hence, in contrast to Kant's work, in Hegel's philosophy of history the relationship between the two sites of historicity acquired a decidedly colonialist form. As a result of this predication of historical agency on history‐writing, the alleged lack of historiography of certain cultures began to be considered as a token of their lack of political ability. The essay ends with the suggestion that the postcolonial thinkers and commentators who deal with historiography should challenge the foregoing predication, as it continues to inform contemporary thought concerning historiography.     

POSTMODERNISM,SOCIAL SCIENCE,AND HISTORY: RETURNING TO AN UNFINISHED AGENDA

Recognizing that the vogue of postmodernism has passed, Simon Susen seeks to assess whatever enduring impact it may have had on the social sciences, including historiography. Indeed, the postmodern turn, as he sees it, seems to have had particular implications for our understanding of the human relationship with history. After five exegetical chapters, in which he seems mostly sympathetic to postmodernism, Susen turns to often biting criticism in a subsequent chapter. He charges, most basically, that postmodernists miss the self‐critical side of modernity and tend to overreact against aspects of modernism. That overreaction is evident especially in the postmodern preoccupation with textuality and discourse, which transforms sociology into cultural studies and historiography into a form of literature. But as Susen sees it, a comparable overreaction has been at work in the postmodern emphasis on new, “little” politics, concerned with identity and difference, at the expense of more traditional large‐scale politics and attendant forms of radicalism. His assessment reflects the “emancipatory” political agenda he assigns to the social sciences. Partly because that agenda inevitably affects what he finds to embrace and what to criticize, aspects of his discussion prove one‐sided. And he does not follow through on his suggestions that postmodernist insights entail a sort of inflation of history or historicity. Partly as a result, his treatment of “reason,” universal rights, and reality (including historiographical realism) betrays an inadequate grasp of the postmodern challenge—and opportunity. In the last analysis, Susen's understanding of the historical sources of postmodernism is simply too limited, but he usefully makes it clear that we have not put the postmodernist challenge behind us.     

EXCEPTIONAL HISTORY? THE ORIGINS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY IN THE UNITED STATES1

This essay examines how and why historiography—defined to mean the study of the history of historical writing—first emerged as a legitimate subject of historical inquiry in the United States during the period from 1890 to the 1930s by focusing on the practice of historiography by three of the most influential American historiographers whose work spans this period: J. Franklin Jameson, John Spencer Bassett, and Harry Elmer Barnes. Whereas the development of historiography as a field of study signified a recognition that historians and historical writing are themselves products of the historical process, American historiographers in this period at the same time used historiography to further a scientific ideal of objectivity that was premised on the belief in the ability of historians to separate themselves from that process. Modern scholars (notably, Peter Novick) have attributed to scientific historians like Jameson and Bassett a simplistic and naive positivism; but the ability of these historiographers to recognize the subjective character of historical writing and yet affirm a belief in objectivity reveals that their understanding of historical truth was more complex than modern scholars have acknowledged. In turn, by questioning the belief that the historical profession was originally founded on a naïve faith in the ideal of objective truth, I demonstrate that New Historians like Barnes were more similar to their predecessors, the scientific historians, than they (or later scholars) acknowledged. Thus, rather than portraying the shift from scientific history to the New History as a linear trajectory of development from objectivity to a more relativist viewpoint, I argue that New Historians like Barnes at once expressed a greater recognition than his scientific predecessors of how historical writing was the product of its context, while still insisting on his commitment to an ideal of objectivity that divorced the historian from that context.     

Giving Masculinity a History: Some Contributions from the Historiography of Colonial India

Contemporary historiography, especially in North American, European and Australian history, now includes a fairly respectable body of literature on men and masculinity. While this literature has produced important contributions to the usefulness of gender as a category of historical analysis, there has also been some wariness within feminist scholarship on the grounds that the issue of the gendered organisation may be evaded. Reflecting on the question ‘what is involved in writing a history of masculinity?’, this article considers the potential contribution that the historiography of colonial India offers to the study of masculinity     

当代中国历史学的学术转型与创新 --试论旧课题的改造和新课题的建立

以往中国历史学轰轰烈烈的专题讨论,不仅凝聚了史学界的绝大部分精力,而且形成了一整套的中国化马克思主义历史理论或历史解释系统。它决定着中国史学的研究与编纂,塑造和影响着人们的思维方式。当前的史学学术转型无论如何不可能回避这些旧课题。从史学学科体系的角度看,改造旧课题,将其转换成为新课题,应该,而且可以成为史学学术转型的突破口。     

ON LAWFULNESS IN HISTORY AND HISTORIOGRAPHY

The use of general and universal laws in historiography has been the subject of debate ever since the end of the nineteenth century. Since the 1970s there has been a growing consensus that general laws such as those in the natural sciences are not applicable in the scientific writing of history. We will argue against this consensus view, not by claiming that the underlying conception of what historiography is—or should be—is wrong, but by contending that it is based on a misconception of what general laws such as those of the natural sciences are. We will show that a revised notion of law, one inspired by the work of Sandra D. Mitchell, in tandem with Jim Woodward's notion of “invariance,” is indeed applicable to historiography, much in the same way as it is to most other scientific disciplines. Having developed a more adequate account of general laws, we then show, by means of three examples, that what are called “pragmatic laws” and “invariance” do in fact play a role in history in several interesting ways. These examples—from cultural history, economic history, and the history of religion—have been selected on the basis of their diversity in order to illustrate the widespread use of pragmatic laws in history.