From Historicism to Postmodernism: Historiography in the Twentieth Century

Book reviewed in this article:
Georg G. Iggers, Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge     

Hegel and Historicism

Abstract

This article summarises the story of the production of the historical volumes by the South African Democracy Education Trust (SADET). SADET was established after former president Thabo Mbeki expressed concern that there was very limited research done on the achievement of a peaceful political settlement in South Africa after decades of violent conflict. SADET's mission is, and has been to conduct a major study of South Africa's political history between 1960 and 1994. The focus of the article is on the project's editorial structure and on its research methodology, particularly the benefits and limitations of the use of oral interviews as the main research tool.     

晚清政治与新史学

晚清政治的变革对新史学的产生和发展起到了积极作用。挽救民族危亡的意识和政治启蒙的需要唤起了史学革命,以民主为指向的政治文化为新史学的发展确定了方向。政治改革不仅为新史学的发展创造了良好条件,也提供了难得的契机。     

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。     

从“新史学”到社会文化史

目前有关社会文化史的讨论中,论者偏重于汲取西方新文化史理论和方法,而对中国史学资源甚少提及。本文认为,20世纪初年新史学的研究取向和方法仍可资借鉴。社会文化史内容丰富,论题亦不限于大众文化一隅,可从多方面拓展和深化。     

张芝联先生与中外史学交流

一、坐而论道,不如起而行之就建国以来所开展的外国史学史研究而言,如果我们无视张芝联先生(1918—2008)的贡献,那么这段史学史的历史不但会显得苍白,甚至还会出现空白。更重要的是,作为中国史学界欧洲史、法国史和史学史研究的一流学者,张先生从不主张东施效颦、亦步亦趋地追随西方的史学潮流。相反,在他的论著以及与外国学者的交往中,他一直坚持保持自己一个中国学者的立场。这一立场,意味着中国学者在接触、引进西方学术的时候,必须基于中国学术的传承,符合中国学界的实际需要。张先生1986年在美国威尔逊中心的一次演讲中提到,中国正在经历一场前所未有的大变迁。在这一变化过程中,外国的经验有许多启发、示范作用。但他同时强调说:“值得注意的是,我们并不照搬一个既有的模式或者按照一个现成的菜谱做菜”。①他在这里描述的是中国改革开放的情形,但也可视为是一种夫子自道。张先生在1991年为高毅《法兰西风格》一书写的序言中也称赞说,“可贵的是作者并不是亦步亦趋地效颦某种流派”。②概括张先生的观点就是,史家必须与时俱进,不应囫囵吞枣、不分青红皂白地照搬、照抄,因为学术思潮的形成,通常不是空穴来风,而是在一定的文化背景下形成的。而文化背景则个...     

西方马克思主义史学的新动向

牛津大学出版社2007年出版的《面向21世纪的马克思主义史学》和《罗德尼·希尔顿的中世纪:历史主题的探讨》两本著作,从多个领域和角度回顾马克思主义史学的历史及现状,总结了马克思主义史学的经验和教训,并对前景进行了展望。西方马克思主义史学家和一些非马克思主义史学家,立足新形势、新角度,深入探讨了马克思主义史学与目的论、马克思主义史学与欧洲中世纪社会经济史研究以及马克思主义史学与非马克思主义史学的关系等问题,显示出当代西方马克思主义史学发展中的一些值得关注的新动向。对这些新动向我们进行了介绍,尽管在一些理论问题上,我们的认识与其并不相同。     

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。     

近代中国的新史学及其流变

清季以来,新史学成为中国学人不断追求的至高境界,可是对于新史学的理解和取径却各不相同。为了后来居上,此前的新史学也往往被当作不破不立的对象。在不断趋新的过程中,中国史学的形式根本改观,但要拿出超越旧史学的代表作,却并不容易。创新的前提是温故,首先要掌握史学的基本与大体,超越中西新旧,避免盲人摸象,防止以偏为新,才不至于欲辟蹊径而蹈覆辙,甚至南辕北辙。     

A New Kushite Historiography: Three Recent Contributions to Nubian Studies

For almost two hundred years Nubian Studies was treated as a sub-discipline of Egyptology. Not surpisingingly, histories of Kush written in this tradition were strongly Egyptocentric in their emphases. During the last quarter of a century, however, Nubian Studies has emerged as a distinct discipline in its own right. The three books reviewed in this article reflect this transformation.     

论民国时期中西史学交流的特点

民国时期的中国史学在欧风美雨的浸润下,艰难地然而终于剥离传统史学的脐带,迈向史学现代化的新途。在这一过程中,中西史学的交融呈现鲜明的特点：史学的传播渠道由欧美直接输入为主,以取代从日本的间接输入;中国学人留学欧美成为时尚,从欧美学成归国的留学生在中西史学的交流中发挥了不可或缺的作用,是传播西方史学的主体;而传播的内容以西方史学理论与方法为主,历史哲学的引入更令人瞩目;出版机构在民国时期中西交流中起到重大和显著的作用。     

科学实证与文化阐释:中国新史学之双轨

中国新史学中最常见的两种历史研究方式是科学实证与文化阐释,前者旨在建立历史事实之真或寻求历史演变之理,后者则以探寻历史之意义或彰显切实之史识为目标,此二者可谓中国新史学之"双轨"。中国新史学正是沿此"双轨"向前发展的。从新史学之"双轨"着眼,并依据"新异性的标准",中国新史学界应有"八大家",他们分别是:梁启超、王国维、陈寅恪、胡适、顾颉刚、傅斯年、郭沫若和钱穆。科学实证与文化阐释,这两种不同的历史研究取径,展示了中国新史学研究的多元面相,二者之间是相互融通的,并无根本性的冲突与对垒,其在治史观念与方法上亦可做到相互补益,相得益彰。许冠三在《新史学九十年》中因陷入"科学"迷思的褊狭"新史学观",以科学实证拒斥文化阐释,故而未能将钱穆基于"文化"视角来研究历史的文化史学视为新史学。钱穆的新史学特质主要表现为:在继承中国传统史学遗产之基础上,注重历史研究主体与客体的统一,以文化为本位,以阐释为取径,其典型表现是"以士释史";以中国为立场,注重探寻本国历史文化之意义,探求与本国历史文化相符合之史识,强调历史学的经世致用功能。钱穆的新史学观与后现代主义在批判科学主义历史学、反对文化一元论和西方中心主义历史观等方面多有契合之处,但其以"于客观中求实证"为基础的历史认识论与走向历史虚无主义的后现代主义有着本质的区别。     

Historiography: an introduction

This introduction precedes the four papers given in October 2000 in Copenhagen on analysing problems in the history of the neurosciences. The term historiography can be defined in different ways but means the study, and not simply the writing, of history. Although it goes back two millennia, it is a rapidly developing field as illustrated by the subsequent contributions.     

Comparative Historiography: Problems and Perspectives

Just like history, historiography is usually written and analyzed within one spatio-temporal setting, traditionally that of a particular nation-state. As a consequence, historiography tends to localize explanations for historiographical developments within national contexts and to neglect international dimensions. As long as that is the case, it is impossible to assess the general and specific aspects of historiographical case studies. This forum, therefore, represents a sustained argument for comparative approaches to historiography. First, my introduction takes a recent study in Canadian historiography as a point of departure in order to illustrate the problems of non-comparative historiography. These problems point to strong arguments in favor of comparative approaches. Second, I place comparative historiography as a genre in relation to a typology that orders theories of historiography on a continuum ranging from general and philosophical to particular and empirical. Third, I put recent debates on the “fragmentation” of historiography in a comparative perspective. Worries among historians about this fragmentation—usually associated with the fragmentation of the nation and the advent of multiculturalism and/or postmodernism—are legitimate when they concern the epistemological foundations of history as a discipline. As soon as the “fragmentation” of historiography leads to—and is legitimated by—epistemological skepticism, a healthy pluralism has given way to an unhealthy relativism. As comparison puts relativism in perspective by revealing its socio-historical foundations, at the same time it creates its rational antidote. Fourth, I summarize the contributions to this forum; all deal—directly or indirectly—with the historiography of the Second World War. Jürgen Kocka's “Asymmetrical Historical Comparison: The Case of the German Sonderweg” examines the so-called “special path” of Germany's history. Daniel Levy's “The Future of the Past: Historiographical Disputes and Competing Memories in Germany and Israel” offers a comparative analysis of recent historiographical debates in Germany and Israel. Sebastian Conrad's “What Time is Japan? Problems of Comparative (Intercultural) Historiography” analyzes the conceptual linkage between Japanese historiography and specific interpretations of European history. Richard Bosworth's “Explaining ‘Auschwitz’ after the End of History: The Case of Italy” charts in a comparative perspective the changes since 1989 in Italian historiography concerning fascism. All four articles support the conclusion that next to the method of historical comparison is the politics of comparison, which is hidden in the choice of the parameters. Analyses of both method and politics are essential for an understanding of (comparative) historiography.     

The Fate of Jewish Historiography after the Bible: A New Interpretation

What caused the eventual decline in later Jewish history of the vibrant historiographical tradition of the biblical period? In contrast to the plethora of historical writings composed during the biblical period, the rabbis of the early common era apparently were not interested in writing history, and when they did relate to historical events they often introduced mythical and unrealistic elements into their writings. Scholars have offered various explanations for this phenomenon; a central goal of this article is to locate these explanations within both the immediate historical setting of Roman Palestine and the overarching cultural atmosphere of the Greco‐Roman Near East. In particular, I suggest that the largely ahistorical approach of the rabbis functioned as a local Jewish counterpart to the widespread classicizing tendencies of a contemporary Greek intellectual movement, the Second Sophistic. In both cases, eastern communities, whose political aspirations were stifled under Roman rule, sought to express their cognitive and spiritual identities by focusing on a glorious and idealized past rather than on contemporary history. Interestingly, the apparent lack of rabbinic interest in historiography is not limited to the early rabbinic period. Throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, Jews essentially did not write their political, diplomatic, or military history. Instead, Jews composed “traditional historiography” which included various types of literary genres among which the rabbinic “chain of transmission” was the most important. The chain of transmission reconstructs (or fabricates) the links that connect later rabbinic sages with their predecessors. Robert Bonfil has noted the similarity between this rabbinic project and contemporary church histories. Adding a diachronic dimension to Bonfil's comparison, I suggest that rabbinic chains of transmission and church histories are not similar though entirely independent phenomena, but rather their shared project actually derives from a common origin, the Hellenistic succession list. The succession list literary genre, which sketches the history of an intellectual discipline, apparently thrived during the Second Sophistic and diffused then into both rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity. Thus, even though historiography was not terribly important to the early rabbis or to most Second Sophistic intellectuals, the succession list schematic, or the history of an intellectual discipline, was evaluated differently. Rabbis and early Christians absorbed the succession list from Second Sophistic culture and then continued to employ this historiographical genre for many centuries to come.     

时代变革与制度——“第三届新史学青年论坛”综述

2019年9月26-28日,《史学月刊》编辑部与福建师范大学社会历史学院以“时代变革与制度”为主题,联合主办了“第三届新史学青年论坛”。此次论坛得到广大青年学者的积极响应,共收到征文340多篇,因受会议规模限制,最终遴选59篇论文的作者参会。与会论文作者分布在海内外37所高校和科研院所,议题涵盖了中国与外国、传统与现代的政治、财政经济、军事文化等相关制度的革新,兹择要介绍。     

20世纪60年代以来的美国新西部史学

20世纪60年代,美国新西部史学崛起,新一代西部史学家的主要成就,是挑战以特纳为代表的传统西部史学流派。他们在西部城市史、种族史、妇女史、环境史、综合史方面,发表了一大批让人耳目一新的学术专著。这些专著对西部历史进行重新定位,浓缩了社会进步的理念,反映了史学家审视历史观念的更新。