The art of link-making in global labour history: subaltern,feminist and Eastern European contributions

Benefiting from the ‘global’ and ‘trans-national’ turns in the larger historiography, labour historians in the past two decades have greatly expanded their geographical scope, developed new methodologies, refashioned categories of analysis and largely abandoned teleological assumptions. In this context, the history of labour in Eastern Europe still constitutes one of the least-globalized research topics in the field, even though the region attracted an array of excellent labour historians both before and after the collapse of state socialism in 1989/91. This introduction to the Dossier on labour history and Eastern Europe reflects on the reasons for the apparent mismatch between Eastern European labour history and the new global labour history. It does so by situating this large question within a discussion of some more or less successful examples of how scholarship on a particular theme in labour history has contributed or attempted to contribute to the conceptual and empirical enlargement of labour history in the past few decades. Focusing on particular aspects of the debates on class analysis, the peasant question, the history of gender, and the history of labour under state socialism, the authors address key questions in the international development of the history of labour. These questions, the authors argue, are at the core of the contributions on Eastern Europe assembled in the Dossier. Situating the four historiographical studies contained in the Dossier in this larger context, the introduction discusses the varied reception of scholarship on aspects of the history of labour emerging in and from different contexts and asks how this scholarship has contributed or might contribute to the development of a more inclusive global labour history.     

新中国建立后十七年“中生代”史家群体与马克思主义史学

新中国建立后十七年,那些出生于1910年代前后、具备扎实的史料考证基础、已经有一定学术地位、正处于学术生命旺盛期的"中生代"史家群体,在马克思主义史学居主导地位以及学习马克思主义理论的形势下,经历了从史料考证研究为主到运用唯物史观、融实证研究与理论指导于一炉的研究路向的转化。他们参加重大历史理论问题的讨论和大规模史料整理工作,在各自的研究领域多有新的创获,成为中国马克思主义史学队伍中的一员。新中国建立后中国马克思主义史家群体得以充实和扩大。     

The agrarian working class put somewhat centre stage: an often neglected group of workers in the historiography of labour in state-socialist Hungary

This study discusses a body of scholarship which is little-known internationally, written in Hungary in the period between 1949 and 1989: the historiography on agrarian labour from the eighteenth century to the Second World War. This historiography was conceptually inclusive in that it explored the history of many groups of agrarian workers, the varied types of labour in which they were involved, including long-term contracts, day and servant labour, seasonal migration and non-agricultural forms of labour, the role of agrarian labour in socio-economic development, and the political movement of ‘agrarian socialism’. This historiography for a large part remained embedded in three adjacent research clusters: peasant studies, local and regional history, and the history of the labour movement. This study argues that scholarly approaches and interests, and institutional framings specific to each of these clusters, were of key importance in generating the extensive scholarship that is reviewed. The fact that Hungary had been a dominantly agrarian country before 1945, the Leninist vision of the ‘alliance of the workers and the peasants’ that was to bring about socialism in Eastern Europe and the state-condoned interest in the history of the labour movement and labour more generally were other important factors conducive to, and to various degrees putting their stamp on, this research. Given its findings within a Marxian or classical social-history framing, and its focus on an often neglected group of workers, the historiography on agrarian labour written in state-socialist Hungary deserves to be integrated into the historiographical canon. This study discusses this scholarship against the backdrop of present-day global labour history. In pointing to some of its area-, time- and context-specific characteristics, the study aims to contribute to a global dialogue in labour history that is sensitive to and critically appreciative of different historiographical trajectories and traditions across world regions.     

美国劳工史研究中“阶级”的概念重构与范式更新

在20世纪美国劳工史研究中,“阶级”概念的内涵被多次重构。旧劳工史家们依据马克思主义的社会分析理论,把“阶级”视为在生产力基础之上形成的一种社会结构。60到80年代美国的新劳工史家在社会史的广阔视野中重新研究阶级。他们反对“阶级”的结构化定义,重视工人自身在“阶级”形成中的能动性,但是,这种“社会转向”也让阶级研究变得碎片化。90年代以后,受后现代主义思潮影响的学者们把种族、性别等分析范畴嵌入劳工史研究,从而解构了“阶级”概念的确定性,将其变为一个不稳定的、模糊不清的“社会和话语构造物”。随着“阶级”概念被多次重构,其作为一个分析范畴在劳工史中的重要性也呈现出弱化的趋势。     

Gendered Labour in the Ideological Discourse of French Marxism: The Parti Ouvrier Français, 1882–1905

This article studies the intersection between the Marxist paradigm of class and the feminist paradigm of gender in the ideological rhetoric of the Parti Ouvrier Français between 1882 and 1905, focusing upon the movement’s understanding of women workers. It argues that, although the POF was far more interested in the gender dimension of labour than most historians have recognized, its approach to the female proletariat was vitiated by its ‘productivist’ world view and its tendency to reduce all labour to factory employment, while the French Marxists’ proto-feminist commitment to women workers as a revolutionary force was undermined by recurrent paternalism.     

‘1968’ IN NORWAY: PIECEMEAL,PEACEFUL AND POSTMODERN

The first part of this essay presents an outline of ‘1968’ in Norway focusing on national particularities, especially the lack of violence. Three elements are highlighted: the political left turn with the opposition to the Vietnam War and the strong Marxist‐Leninist faction as main aspects; the student revolt; and the multifarious countercultural movement. The theme of the second part is the state of Norwegian 1968 historiography. Here a distinction is drawn between actors‐cum‐historians and historians proper, or rather between writers with a desire to commemorate – predominantly but not exclusively former communists – and writers whose interest in the events is more professionally historiographic.     

试析20世纪40年代中国马克思主义史学家对史料和历史考证方法的重视

20世纪30年代,经过中国社会史论战而迅速扩大影响的中国马克思主义史学,存在着明显的教条化和公式化、轻视史料与考证的缺失。40年代的中国马克思主义史学家对此进行了积极的反思和纠正,而且还从理论上论述了史料及考证方法在历史研究中的重要性,阐述了理论观点与材料方法间的辩证关系,极大地促进了马克思主义史学的中国化和学术研究的中国化。     

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。     

新中国史学的初建:郭沫若与中国马克思主义史学主导地位的确立

郭沫若对新中国成立后中国马克思主义史学主导地位的确立及走向与发展具有重要影响。他在1949年后任中国新史学研究会筹备会和中国史学会主席,提出史学发展六个方面的转向,规划了中国史学的发展前景。他创办并主持的《历史研究》杂志提倡历史研究应史料与理论并重。郭沫若礼待陈寅恪,邀请其出任《历史研究》杂志编委和中国科学院社会科学学部委员。郭沫若重启中国古史分期问题的讨论,引发了研究一系列重要历史理论问题的热潮。在郭沫若和其他马克思主义史学家的努力下,新中国史学初步形成了发展规模。     

Improving the use of history by the international humanitarian sector

Abstract

This article challenges the often implicit assumption by historians working on humanitarian history that their work is being read and used by present-day humanitarian workers. Key characteristics of the modern-day humanitarian sector are highlighted, including the unpredictable and often inadequate levels of funding, stressful working conditions and high staff turnover. The article argues that, to a significant degree, the humanitarian sector is ahistorical and locked into a state of ‘perpetual present’. Two principal obstacles to the greater use of historical knowledge within the present-day humanitarian sector are identified as being the limited accessibility of the available literature on humanitarian history and the perceptions that the work of humanitarian historians is of limited relevance. The paper concludes by describing recent initiatives including the planned humanitarianhistory.org website which is intended to improve the accessibility of the available literature and facilitate engagement and co-production between historians and humanitarian workers.     

从村童到学术大师:韩儒林评传

20世纪的中国史学有两大流派,即实证主义史学和马克思主义史学。韩儒林先生是一位掌握实证史学方法、努力用马克思主义观点解释历史现象的史学家。他在元史和边疆史地研究方面取得了丰硕成就,成为一代学术大师。     

邓小平对马克思主义史学理论及国史研究的贡献

邓小平在指导中国社会主义建设过程中,不仅批判“四人帮”极“左”思潮,还马克思主义史学理论以本来面目,还用马克思主义史学理论指导研究国史,创造性地提出了研究国史的理论、原则和方法,为当代马克思主义史学发展和国史研究提供了思想武器。     

Antiquarianism and national history. The emergence of a new scholarly paradigm in early modern historical studies*

Early modern Europe was marked by fundamental changes in its intellectual landscape. In the field of historiography, this led to the development of a new antiquarian current in historiography which marked a fundamental shift in the view on historical writings. While traditionally historiography had been considered a literary genre, the new scholars approached it as a ‘scientific’ discipline. On the basis of a comparative study of a number of northern European national histories, this paper analyses major transformations in two aspects of historical writing. Firstly, antiquarian historians extended the subject range of historiography to include a variety of cultural-historical topics. This innovation also had implications for the structure of their works. Secondly, the new current introduced a novel approach to the question of historical evidence to counter sceptic criticism and meet the new requirements occasioned by the rise of empirical models of research. Antiquarian scholars therefore introduced several new types of source materials: material evidence of the past, comparative studies of languages and customs, and documentary texts were added as sources of historical information. They furthermore subjected all historical sources to rigorous critical assessment.     

The Joint Polish--German Commission for the Revision of School Textbooks and Polish Views of German History

The Joint Polish–German Commission for the Revision ofSchool Textbooks was set up in 1972, bringing together historiansfrom Poland and the Federal Republic of Germany in view of reopeninga scholarly dialogue after decades of almost complete noncommunication.Until the late 1980s, the commission played a prominent roleas a forum for cross-national discussions on Polish-German Beziehungsgeschichte,and most of the leading Polish experts in German history participatedin its proceedings. For the development of Polish historiographyon Germany the work of the commission seems to have been relevantin at least two respects. The commission's regular conferenceson controversial or methodologically complex issues of Polish-GermanBeziehungsgeschichte contributed, on the one hand, to defininga new agenda for Polish historiography on Germany. The interestin explicitly comparative approaches to German and Polish historyincreased, and the focus shifted from specifically ‘Polishinterests’ in German history to more general issues. Onthe other hand, these conferences provided Polish historianswith the opportunity to make their research more visible toGerman historians (even outside the field of specialised EastEuropeanists)—a fact that encouraged Polish historiographyon Germany to pursue more ambitious tasks.     

新史学:历史学者的永恒追求 --并以此纪念《史学月刊》创刊300期

作为史学发展进程中一种带有规律性的史学现象的新史学,是历史学发展的内在要求和历史学者的永恒追求。史学史表明,历史学的发展历程,在本质上就是一个一代一代的历史学者在传承既有史学文化遗产的基础上追求新史学的永无止境的过程。历史学者对新史学的追求,是历史学者史家主体意识的鲜明而集中的体现。历史学者所追求的新史学,虽有明确的方向性,但一般只是一个模糊的轮廓。正是通过、并且正是在历史学者对新史学孜孜不倦的永恒追求中,史学不断实现着对自身的超越。     

Putting Geography in its Place

Work on the history of geographical knowledge and practice frequently draws inspiration from theoretical insights developed elsewhere in the academy. After briefly touching on some of these historiographical matters, I argue that geographers might make some telling interventions into this debate by attending to some of their own key concepts – space, site, location – and disclosing their significance for elucidating the history of intellectual traditions. The fact that historians of science have begun to remark on the role of ‘place’ in knowledge production and consumption further confirms the value of this ‘geographical turn’. Subsequently I dwell on the implications of a spatialised historiography for work on the history of geography itself, and urge that ‘the history of geography’ might profitably be reconceptualised as ‘the historical geography of geography’.     

西方史学史研究中的问题和方法

近 2 0年间 ,我国的西方史学史研究 ,已有了长足发展 ,但仍有不少事情要做。历史学家的任务 ,在于广泛汲取前人研究成果的基础上 ,不断地提出新的问题和回答新的问题。不言而喻 ,这对西方史学史研究也是完全适用的 ,因此要加强研究中的理论的归纳或理论的概括。我们的西方史学史研究应有自己独立的理论、原则和方法。很难想象 ,在他人的理论框架和话语系统中能够充分地表达我们自己的思想和观点。我们必须建立起自己独立的西方史学史研究体系 ,首先是以唯物史观为理论指导的理论体系。当前应更加重视史学思想史的研究和学风建设     

The Qing Dynasty Ministry of Justice Memorials and “The New History”

The Qing Dynasty Grand Secretariat Archives are considered to be among the four great ancient texts discovered in modern Chinese history, and the memorials from the Ministry of Justice have garnered particular attention due to their well-preserved socio-economic content(s). From the 20th century onwards the New History, with its emphasis on drawing upon the social sciences’ discussions of citizens, communities and society, came to replace the more traditional “Imperial Genealogy” style of historiography, affording us a grander view of history. Progressing forward with “the times,” the New History continued to innovate and diversify the field; in terms of Qing dynasty social historical research, it brought about constant exploration and change within the field, first having shifted from socio-economic history to social history, then moving on to life history, the investigation of the “seeds of capitalism,” class relations, lower-class society, marriage and family relations, law and justice, gender studies, daily life (“life, livelihood and environment”), and so on, continually pushing the boundaries of academic research. Yet, underlying all this change was a close relationship between the use of the Ministry of Justice Memorials and the field’s overall development. This article not only introduces several findings made by academicians in using the Ministry of Justice Memorials, but also sets out to further reveal the relationship between the New History and the memorials themselves, probing into the deeper question of broader changes in historiography and their relationship with generational shifts in intellectual thought.     

Too small to be of interest,too large to grasp? Histories of the Luxembourg financial centre

ABSTRACT

The importance of smaller financial centres in international capitalism has recently been highlighted by a number of ‘leaks’. Yet such public attention stands in contrast to the paucity of historiographical research on these relatively new centres. To this regard, Luxembourg provides an interesting case study. While identified as a ‘global specialist’ by the Global Financial Centres Index, the genealogy of how it came to achieve this status remains largely under-researched. This article reviews the historiography of the Luxembourg financial centre from both external perspectives – how the international social sciences and humanities have positioned the Luxembourg financial sector within the broader finance and banking context – and internal viewpoints – how scholars in Luxembourg have recounted the relevant events. The Luxembourg financial centre began to appear in international historiography only in the last fifteen years. With only rare departures from general overviews and a tendency not to consult local sources, the contributions of international historians have mostly attempted to identify time frames and contextualise the particularities of its historical development. That said, a recent geographical diversification of the literature has seen the appearance of publications that demonstrate a more detailed understanding of its internal structures and links with other nerve centres of the global financial system. While a Luxembourg historiography began to develop in the late 1970s, it has often been produced to coincide with commemorative events, funded by players in the financial centre and frequently written by these same actors. While not necessarily hagiographic in approach, a lack of distance from the subject and a failure to problematise the subject has nevertheless meant that these writings are little more than factual introductions that, while useful, are limited in their historiographical depth. Furthermore, a dearth of archival research has produced a repetitive narrative based around a selection of key events and figures.     

正确看待马克思主义史学的历史发展——访林甘泉研究员

应该以历史的眼光看待马克思主义史学在建国以来50年的发展。应该以实事求是的态度对待过去史学的发展。要科学地看待社会经济形态理论的价值,它是唯物史观的基石。不同学术思想的学者应该在互相尊重的前提下开展百家争鸣;研究方法应该多样化。马克思主义史学要以实证研究为基础。大师级的史学家一定会在21世纪出现。