中国近代文化史研究的一部力作——评耿云志先生著《近代中国文化转型研究导论》

耿云志先生主持的"近代中国文化转型研究"作为中国社科院的重大课题,历时7年,经课题组同人的共同努力,已分9卷由四川人民出版社2008年出版.这是中国近代史研究领域新近产生的一批重要成果,也是自上个世纪80年代开创中国近代文化史研究以来的一次重大进展.     

近20年来中国近代思想史研究的新进展

近20年来,在观念史、思想文化与社会转型、知识分子、新文化史以及报刊史等五个领域,中国近代思想史研究呈现出一系列新进展,也在大陆、港台、日本、欧洲、美国等地区形成了不同的思想史研究范式。一方面,多元现代性理念的兴起,带来研究视野的转变,也赋予思想史多元的内容。另一方面,社会科学研究理念的引入,特别是新文化史研究方法的交叉融合,扩大了传统思想史研究的范畴与边界,打通了思想史与人文社会科学的壁垒,也引发了研究者对于思想史研究学科建设的深层思考。     

近代中国城市大众文化史研究笔谈——让城市文化史研究更富活力

我国文化史的研究,长期是以思想史和学术史的研究为主,能够涉及城市生活和大众文化的内容很少。随着国内外学术交流的推动,学术研究日益繁荣,我国史学研究领域不断得到扩展。史学界继城市政治史、城市经济史、城市社会史的研究热潮之后,近代中国城市大众文化史的研究日益成为中外学者研究的热点,使得文化史的研究较前有了很大的进展。尽管城市大众文化史的研究受到学术界较多的关注,可到目前为止,这一领域的研究成果还未尽人意,许多方面还有待于进一步开发和推进,也有不少理论问题需要探讨。因此,这个研究领域可做的文章还有太多。借2007年暑期成都召开“第二届中国近代大众文化研讨会”之机,我刊约请了几位国内外专家学者,请他们就近代城市大众文化史的研究发表见解,阐发自己研究中的认识以及所发现的问题和采取的对策,以期通过对问题的讨论,推动“近代城市大众文化史研究”的进一步深入。     

“中国近代思想史研究拓展与创新”笔谈

正【编者按】近年来,中国近代思想史研究在观念史、新文化史、知识分子等方面取得了不少的成绩和进展,可以预见未来也将有进一步的发展和推进。此外,中国近代思想史理论与方法也有新的成果出现,可见思想史研究的视域在不断更新。概而言之,中国近代思想史不仅研究领域有所扩充,而且由于观念史、新文化史等与中国近代思想的交融,扩大了中国近代思想史的传统研究范畴和领域,许多以前不为思想史研究者注意的领域与范畴,逐渐纳入研究     

“近代文化与近代中国”学术研讨会综述

2011年4月23日至24日,第二届"近代文化与近代中国"学术研讨会在北京师范大学举行。80余名国内外中国近代文化史研究者参加了会议,围绕近代文化史研究的理论方法、学术范式和话语,传统文化与近代文化,西学与近代中国文化,国家、社会与文化变迁等问题展开了热烈讨论。     

朱维铮先生与20世纪80年代的“文化史”

朱维铮先生是20世纪80年代中国文化史研究的主要倡导者、开拓者和建设者。本文以作者亲历的事实,并利用相关书札文献,比较翔实地描述了朱先生组织"中国文化史研究学者座谈会"、策划出版《中国文化研究集刊》和《中国文化史丛书》,以及筹办"首届国际中国文化学术讨论会"和著作《走出中世纪》等若干重要的工作,阐明其作为80年代中国文化史学科建设和规划的主要策划人的贡献。     

史学精粹

龚书铎:《中国近代思想史研究的几个问题》(《人民日报》2007年6月22日第15版)中国近代思想史是新中国成立后才真正建立起来并不断发展的。就已经出版的著作而言,其体裁大体经历了按时期依序论述思想家及其代表作到按主要思潮分类论述、由思想史或政治思想史到社会思潮史的变化。中国近代思想史的起讫有不同说法,实际上,还是以鸦片战争为起点更符合历史事实,下限则可以由五四运动前调整到中华人民共和国成立。近代思想史内容丰富,但不等于把诸多专门领域的思想逐一罗列,成为一个拼盘,而是要分清主次,加以综合。中国近代思想史不能简单化地理…     

中国妇女/性别史研究为何略显沉寂?

<正>在中国学术界称妇女/性别史为“显学”,恐怕不会有太多人反对，尽管人们或对相关研究的水准有不同评价。20世纪80年代末，中国妇女史研究兴起；90年代，“社会性别”理论被引入，性别史研究兴起。作为新兴的研究领域和学科(独立的妇女/性别研究学科出现于20世纪90年代末。宋少鹏《立足问题，无关中西：在历史的内在脉络中建构的学科——对中国“妇女/性别研究”的思想史考察》,《妇女研究论丛》2018年第5期),     

中国近代文化史研究的两难困境与突围之路

<正>20世纪初,随着新学与旧学、中学与西学等文化论争的展开,中国文化史作为一门新兴学科起步并得到发展。新中国成立以后,文化史研究遽然冷却,思想史、文艺史研究取代了文化史研究。改革开放以后,中国近代文化史作为一门新兴学科得到迅速恢复。恢复后的中国近代文化史研究,沿着传统文化史范式快速推进并取得显著成绩,但因研究视域及方法备受诟病,社会文化史和新文化史随之勃然兴起。社会文化史与西方引入的新文化史在研究领域及研究理念上有许多相似之处,     

近代文明观形成浅议

20世纪80年代以来,中国近代文化史研究虽取得长足进展,但对其理论问题尚乏充分讨论。这一状况,非常不利于研究的持久深入。为了推进中国近代文化史研究的理论思考,我们邀请六位教授,就相关问题发表各自的高见。郑师渠认为:要正确解读20世纪初年中国社会文化思潮的变动,必须进一步超越既有的定势思维,将之置于欧战前后现代思潮变动的大视野下考察,引入反省现代性思潮这一新的视角,把握现代性与反省现代性的搏击与统一,才能得出更合乎历史实际的认识。史革新认为:在近代中国新文化理论诸说中,近代文明观是形成较早的文化理论学说,它固然有对传统文化观念的继承,但更主要的是对输入于欧美、日本的文明观的吸收,实为中国近代思想文化的发展提供了一个新的起点。郑大华认为:加强社会变迁与文化转型之互动关系的研究,对于深化中国近代文化史的研究具有十分重要的意义,因为社会变迁引起文化转型,并决定着文化转型的性质和速率,而文化转型又对社会变迁有着重要影响,有时还为下一步的社会变迁制造或提供思想前提。黄兴涛认为:文化史研究由三个层面组成,一是文化人物、事件、各文化分支门类自身一般状况的研究;二是多种文化因素整合而成的"文化现象"的发现和阐释;三是文化与社会政治、经济等的互动关系的研究,尤其应注重"社会的文化史"与"文化的社会史"之间的互动关系。李帆认为:中国近代学术史研究有其自身的特色所在,分期方面不完全等同于政治史,研究对象、视角和思想史有所不同,不过没必要强分畛域,研究视野上则要有文化史的视野,文化史是其基本依托。张昭军认为:中国近代文化史研究对象的确定,一是要以新文化的生成、发展为主线,兼顾近代历史上的其他文化;二是要将文化史作为类文化的历史,而非专史的简单拼合;三是既把文化作为研究对象,又视为不断发展的理论方法;四是要处理好"外在取向"与"内在理路"的关系。以下刊出他们的精彩论述,希望能对关注这方面问题的读者有所帮助,也期望学界同仁参与讨论。     

试论历史人类学与中国近代史研究中的几个问题

兴起于20世纪80年代中后期的历史人类学,尽管从学术传承上分属于两个不同的学科,但它的出现为消融历史学与人类学的边界,促成两个学科的交叉与融合,起到了不可低估的作用。在历史学内,“历史人类学”的形成亦经历了一个从社会史、社会文化史到历史人类学的演变过程。而在中国近代史领域,历史人类学已经展开一些研究实践,但是尚需进一步提倡。这种提倡表现在三个方面:底层视角、区域经验、文本与田野互动。历史人类学会对中国近代史研究产生有益的影响,会成为一种介于宏大叙事与经验性实证研究的“中层理论”。从历史学科的本位出发,历史人类学对人类学的吸收借鉴颇多,但是不能轻易放弃历史学科本位。     

论20世纪20年代的中国近代史研究

20年代的中国近代史研究呈现出一种畸形的发展状况。近代史研究不被时人看重,但却有不少近代史著述出版。到1928年,通过对近代史史料的整理工作,由斯而发,罗家伦明确提出了要科学地研究中国近代史,开启了近代史研究的新局面;从史学史的角度对这些近代史著述的特点作出总结,知人论世,可以窥见20年代近代史研究的状况。     

近代英国民众休闲生活史研究述评

近代英国民众休闲生活史的研究开始于 2 0世纪 5 0年代 ,初期的研究者及研究成果都非常有限 ;70年代 ,休闲史研究得到主流学术界认可 ,并出现了很多优秀的研究者和著作 ;80年代 ,其它学科的研究方法得到利用 ,促进了休闲史研究的发展 ;90年代以来 ,研究学者更多 ,研究深度和广度前所未有。在 5 0多年的研究中 ,学者们讨论了休闲文化的两极分化、民众休闲的萎缩、休闲生活变迁原因以及休闲革命影响范围等一些重要问题 ,并形成了一些公认的结论。此外 ,休闲史研究充分利用了各种资料 ,促进了该项研究的发展     

Writing about a different kind of medical history: a critical review of Zaizao bingren by Yang Nianqun

After the implementation of China's Reform Policy and the dissolution of the Cold War system, the conditions in Japan for conducting scholarly research on China's modern history changed drastically. We can categorize Japanese research on China's modern history since the 1980s into two components: the relativization of the Chinese Revolution and a rediscovery of the uniqueness of Chinese society. Some historians, however, continue to point out that an alternative vision of history that integrates detailed research results already achieved within individual areas of history has not yet replaced the conventional revolution‐based paradigm. It is indisputable, as they emphasize, that breaking away from the so‐called revolution‐based viewpoint of history in Japan has created diverse visions of history and has contributed to a more substantial body of work pertaining to China's modern history. The question of what kind of new vision we should search for, however, remains unanswered. Recent overviews of modern Chinese history in Japan were expected to answer this question. This paper is intended as a general review of recent trends and expected developments in Japanese research on China's modern history by introducing the most important overviews written by Japanese scholars. We are not concerned here with individual case study research.     

HOW TO CHANGE HISTORY

The recent death of Eric Hobsbawm provides a fitting occasion to take stock of the entire trajectory of his work. Taking his final book, How to Change the World, as its starting point, this essay considers Hobsbawm's effort to change the way history was written. It divides his career into three main phases: 1) during the 1940s and 50s when he served his apprenticeship and emerged as a leading labor historian of modern Britain. Working in conjunction with colleagues in the Communist Party Historian's group, Hobsbawm helped to raise Marxist history to academic respectability; 2) during the 1960s and 70s, Hobsbawm reached the apogee of his career, publishing the first two volumes of his synoptic history of modern capitalism, as well a multitude of more specialized and critical works. No longer just one among a group of Marxist scholars, he—along with E. P. Thompson—became one of the most famous and influential historians in the world. 3) For Hobsbawm, as for other Marxists, the 1980s and 1990s were a time of crisis, when Marxism was destabilized and communism collapsed. Ironically, this essay argues, it was during this challenging period that Hobsbawm's most influential work appeared—most notably, his studies of modern nationalism and his analysis of the “invention of tradition”. Whereas the early Hobsbawm had worked to bring Marxist history into the academy, the later Hobsbawm (perhaps inadvertently) showed how the academy could absorb analytical elements initially formulated in a Marxist framework by translating them into non‐Marxist terms. Whatever one thinks of Hobsbawm's intellectual legacy, one must acknowledge his status as a polymathic giant who wrote global history that was at once theoretically grounded, publicly accessible, and historiographically consequential.     

Shifting Narratives: Modern Chinese History since the Economic Reform and a Critique of Popular Opinion

When discussing the trans-formative shifts having occurred in the field of Chinese modern history following the economic reforms, one cannot avoid mention of the “revolutionary history paradigm,” the “paradigm of modernization” as well as the “postmodern paradigm.” According to popular belief, the course of development taken by the academic world during the past forty years was marked by a series of transformations: First was the progressive replacement of the “revolutionary history paradigm” by that of the “paradigm of modernization”; following that was the rise of the “postmodern paradigm” and the challenging of its predecessor. This set of divisions, though logically clear and succinct, cannot possibly conform to the realities of history in all of its complexness. While academic circles in the 1980’s were largely concerned with the issues of “what exactly is the historical driving force of Marxism” and “who are the revolutionary class,” the notion of the “paradigm of modernization” was rather a product of the conservative historical viewpoint and its rise during the late 1990’s. In this sense, then, the latter cannot possibly embody the former. On the surface of things, though the “postmodern paradigm” appears to refuse the narrative of revolutionary history, it in fact shares deeper connections with Chinese revolutionary thought at its roots. In short, then, these trans-formative shifts in modern Chinese history are not a simple “exchange” whereby one paradigm transfers into the next, but are rather a process of incessant and interconnected change.     

Does the History of Medicine Begin where the History of Philosophy Ends? An Example of Interdisciplinarity in the Early Modern Era

Abstract

A popular saying attributed to Aristotle states that ‘medicine begins where philosophy ends’—but this principle does not seem entirely valid for the late Middle Ages and the Renaissance, when medicine and philosophy were considered to be integral parts of the same branch of knowledge. For this reason, although today medicine and philosophy are clearly distinct disciplines, historians of ideas cannot study them entirely separately. Indeed, since the early modern era was a period of profound revision of knowledge, probably only a truly interdisciplinary investigation can identify the conceptual shifts and transfers capable of reinstating medicine in its fundamental role in the development of civilisation and modern thought, in particular as a model of a rational knowledge aimed at improving the social good through a fitting interpretation of experience. This article intends to offer arguments in support of such a historiographical approach, and to illustrate certain interesting methodological ideas that emerge from a study in which the history of philosophy and history of medicine cross-pollinate.     

VALIDITY NOW

This review essay offers an extended analysis of Martin Jay's Genesis and Validity: The Theory and Practice of Intellectual History, highlighting Jay's emphasis on the need for intellectual historians to address the question of the present-day validity of ideas. In this volume of essays on twentieth-century philosophy and historiography, Jay contends that the perennial tension between historicism and truth value is integral to intellectual history; however, it is establishing the latter that is the most crucial, and perhaps most difficult, part of our practice. In thirteen separate but related pieces, Jay explores subjects such as the common ground shared by Quentin Skinner and Hayden White, the “styles” of thought represented by Walter Benjamin and Isaiah Berlin, and recent French theories of the historical sublime and the “advent” of ideas. This review essay discusses these pieces and compares Jay's essay on historical truthfulness to ancient rhetorical discussions of the many forms of lying about history. Its final section deals with the ways in which insights from the history of science might help us to connect genesis and validity by examining the practices of idea- or knowledge-making, and it argues that validity is also, and perhaps most importantly, something we need to embrace in our roles as teachers. What makes ideas valid is the next generation of thinkers, and to make wise and well-informed life choices, they need to have a full range of older and newer ideas about the human condition from which to choose.     

Intellectual History and the History of Philosophy

Summary

The issue which I wish to address in this paper is the widespread tendency in Anglophone philosophy to insist on a separation between the history of philosophy and the history of ideas or intellectual history. This separation reflects an anxiety on the part of philosophers lest the special character of philosophy will be dissolved into something else in the hands of historians. And it is borne of a fundamental tension between those who think of philosophy's past as a source of ideas and arguments of interest to the present, and those who hold that the philosophy of the past should be studied on its own terms, in relation to its immediate context, without reference to the present. The challenge, then, is to re-historicise the history of philosophy, and to keep the philosophers onside.     

清末城市自治思想及其对近代城市发展的影响

清末,一些有识之士发现城市自治制度是西方民主政治的基础性结构后,自觉地将实现民主政治的愿望寄托在争取城市自治之上。清末地方自治的实践主要侧重于城市进行,使城市自治运动实质上成为地方自治运动的主体。政治民主化城市优先发展的思路由此初露端倪,并且成为近代城市在政治层面发展的主线,影响着近代城市的发展走向。城市自治思想使近代城市的发展具有以追求实现民主政治为目标指向的主观精神动力。