从微观到宏观——卡洛·金兹伯格的形态学比较研究

20世纪80年代末,微观史学的代表人物卡洛·金兹伯格开始尝试宏观层面的史学比较研究。这一方面是由于金兹伯格为保持学术敏感,主动回避微观史中心化的趋势;另一方面,是他开始采用形态学比较的方法来解决曾在巫术迫害事件的微观研究中未能解决的问题,即为什么时空相隔遥远的现象却多有相似?马克·布洛赫认为纯形态的比较不可靠,而金兹伯格却深入其中,以相似现象之间的"中间环节"为依据,论证了欧洲的巫师夜间集会活动在形象构成、仪式形式来源以及信仰心态三个方面与诸多社会现象可能存在历史关联。金兹伯格的形态学比较尝试没有取得成功,因为其推测性成分远超过常规历史学研究应有的程度。不过,金兹伯格的确在布洛赫认为不可行的领域迈出了有启示性的一步。     

论西方微观史学对宏观叙事的构建

微观史学通常被认为与宏观史学相对立并因此被视作“碎片化”的代名词。然而,实际情况并非如此简单。事实上,微观史学家在专注于历史细节的同时,也在积极地构建宏观的历史叙事。他们提出了“正常的例外”和“可变的尺度”两个概念作为其宏观叙事的理论根据,并通过个体与社会的关联性、象征性隐喻、追随、深描、比较等方式在研究实践中建立起微观史与宏观史乃至全球史之间的联系。而他们之所以如此,归根结底与其所处的多元主义学术语境有着密不可分的联系。微观史学与宏观史学特别是与全球史学相融的事实,对于我们走出“碎片化”的历史,以及确立一种辩证多元的历史认知模式具有启发意义。     

新文化史、微观史和大众文化史——西方有关成果及其对中国史研究的影响

西方史学界正在发生着一个转向,新文化史、微观史、大众文化史研究的发展便是这个转向的重要标志之一.这个演讲将就这个转向的重要成果进行简要的介绍,并评述其对中国史研究的影响.演讲分四个部分,首先介绍西方新文化史和微观史学;然后概述中国史研究的有关成果;第三部分以我自己最近的研究课题为例,来看目前西方史学的这个新趋势对我自己学术发展的影响;最后,我还将就新文化史、微观史、大众文化史研究与中国史研究的若干问题提出我的一些思考.     

南京大屠杀微观史调查与研究初探

对20世纪30年代发生的南京大屠杀历史事件,从宏观上进行史学调查和研究是必要的,但就其涉及到的受害家庭乃至每一个受害者、加害者、见证者个体进行研究,同样也是极其重要的。过去从宏观层面去发掘南京大屠杀的历史真相,现在需要增加从微观层面的研究,包括家族史和个人的受害史。二者主要差异在于研究的方法和角度,因为微观史学的主要任...     

从二分到跨文化比较——西方的中西历史及史学比较述论

西方的中西历史及史学比较研究起源较早,是从宏观的历史文化比较发展来的。20世纪六七十年代以前,主要以宏观比较为主,并形成一般的理论模式。六七十年代,以个体的微观研究为主要特征,形成一个高潮。90年代至今是第二个高潮,以大的群体或项目为中心,出现了系统的比较,提出了新的比较理论,史学越来越成为比较的重点。西方的中西历史及史学比较理论,经历了从以近代西方为中心的东西二分法,到注重多元化的文明形态比较,再到不同文化的跨文化比较的几个发展阶段。这些变化是与学术和历史的变化密切相关的。     

本土化、科学化和方法热：民国时期史学理论研究的基本趋向

民国时期的史学理论研究，经历了从输入、移植、介绍西方史学理论到逐渐领悟而尝试建构中国本土化史学理论的过程。它主要是沿着两条路径推进的：一是以西方史学理论著作为蓝本，接受并综合西方近代史学理论而创建中国本土的史学理论；二是用西方史学理论的基本理念来关照中国史学传统，发掘中国传统史学中适合近代西方史学理论的因素，进而构建具有中国本土化特色的史学理论体系。民国史学理论研究，深受西方近代实证主义史学思潮影响，以科学化作为史学理论建构的主要目标，努力建构实证主义的科学化史学。科学化的史学研究，重视历史考证和史实求真，致力于历史学的科学化并强调科学方法，将研究重心集中于科学方法论，出现了史学研究的“方法热”。这种“方法热”趋向，既体现为自觉借鉴并运用自然科学方法及社会科学方法，更体现为集中探究狭义的史料学方法，即研究实用性的史料考证方法。因此，本土化、科学化和方法热，构成民国时期史学理论研究的基本趋向。     

《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     

史学话语权与20世纪的中国民族史学——兼说10卷本《中国史学思想通史》

20世纪中国社会发生变动,受到西方学术思潮的影响,中国史学进入到近代化时期.西方学术话语处在强势地位,在这样的大背景下,近代史学理论、思想的争论,基本是按照西方的史学理论的热点而展开,也随着西方史学理论的热点的变动而变动.这对扩大研究视野、深化相关的史学认识有一定的意义,但另一面是,民族史学的重要思想失去应有的地位.传统民族史学思想、理论具有重要的价值,是西方史学理论不能完全替代的;民族史学话语权的失落,对于中国史学发展是不利的.进入到21世纪,史学理论发展不能忽视中国民族史学思想的研究".认真总结民族史学思想遗产,对于当代史学具有重大的意义,是振兴民族史学的重要工作,也是民族史学走向世界的基本要求.     

卡罗·金兹堡微观史学研究的理论指向

卡罗·金兹堡的"微观史"实践含有强烈的史学理论指向。他针对小人物心智的细致考察拓展了历史学"自下而上"的视野,发现小人物也有大智慧。这对精英史观的片面预设形成质疑,但史料匮乏使关于大众意识的历史影响的分析难以进一步深入。金兹堡强调关于小人物的意识研究应深入到文化意义上的个性化阐释,反对只关注意识共性的心态史取径,然而他将个别小人物的心智特性比附为大众群体共有的文化属性的策略有以偏概全之嫌。金兹堡批评计量方法的局限,认为基于口述材料的阐释性叙事在呈现大众文化史方面更为有效。他的论说揭示了叙事在交代细节和还原情境方面的特殊作用,明确了计量和叙事在长、短时段研究中的各自优势。总体看来,金兹堡的论说使一种多元主义的历史认识论变得较之以往更为令人信服,即历史本身是一种多相性且异质性的存在,因而不可能期待凭借单一的视角、模式、方法就彻底地对其进行解读。就此而言,历史学不应再追求自然科学式的自我整合,而是应该思考如何合理地利用更多元化的研究模式和解释工具,使不同层面、不同类型的历史事实得到解读。     

“眼在远处,手在近处”——关于西方史学史教学的几个问题

教书不易,教史学史更不易,而讲授西方史学史尤为艰难。以下所谈,仅是个人自八十年代以来讲授西方史学史的一些粗浅的体会,希望得到学界同行们的匡正。 一 史学史的研究,是一种承上启下、继往开来的工作。作为一门学科,西方史学史是以总结和评价西方过去的史学工作为宗旨,注重探讨西方史学的发生、发展及其嬗变的客观     

Clues, Margins, and Monads: The Micro–Macro Link in Historical Research

This article discusses the new microhistory of the 1970s and 1980s in terms of the concept of exceptional typical, and contrasts the new microhistory to old microhistory, in which the relationship between micro and macro levels of phenomena was defined by means of the concepts of exceptionality and typicality. The focus of the essay is on Carlo Ginzburg's method of clues, Walter Benjamin's idea of monads, and Michel de Certeau's concept of margins. The new microhistory is also compared with methodological discussions in the social sciences. In the mid-1970s concepts like the micro–macro link or the microfoundations of macrotheory were introduced in sociology and economics. But these largely worked in terms of the concepts of typicality or exceptionality, and this has proved to be problematic. Only historians have developed concepts that escape these and the older definitions of the micro–macro relationship; indeed, the "new microhistory" can best be described in terms of the notion of "exceptional typical." The essay explores the meaning of this notion.     

Introduction: Singularization of History and Archaeological Framing

Microhistory and historical archaeology are important comrades, even in the broad-scale analysis of the modern world. Two scholars in Iceland have been paying close attention to the theory of microhistory. This brief introduction to their papers provides my thoughts on the linkage between historical archaeology and microhistory.     

Memory in warfare: history as a destituent narrative

Abstract

To what extent may we consider historical writing a field of political tension? Could we make a plausible conceptual distinction between a constituent and a destituent narrative? According to Carlo Ginzburg – one of the proponents of ‘microhistory’ – historical sources are ‘distorting mirrors’, which let the truth shine through in an indirect way. Consequently, the good historian is the one who manages to grasp the ‘Freudian slips’ of history and fixes them in a coherent framework. Michel Foucault’s ‘political historicism’ seems to adopt the same historiographical approach: the most reliable witnesses of the past are the victims of the dominant power and the forgotten subjects of the constituent historical narrative. It seems to the author that Walter Benjamin and Simone Weil’s warfare writings share this destituent attitude towards historical representations. As far as Benjamin is concerned, the author’s hypothesis is that between the two world wars he radically redefines his notion of memory. With the apotheosis of the Nazi regime, he starts to conceive memory of the catastrophic past as the only possible input of an authentic revolutionary action. With a similar attention to collective memory, Weil goes through European history in order to deconstruct its principal political mythologies, from Rome to the Third Reich. Her purpose is to let the stories of the defeated re-emerge in order to show the history of violence that lies beyond the official representation of the past. In both cases, the main political aim is eventually to produce a destituent narrative of Europe that could serve as a guideline in the post-war period.     

Women and Family Property: A Review of U.S. Inheritance Studies

Historians can use the concept of causation in a variety of ways, each of which is associated with different historiographical claims and different kinds of argumentation. The author shows that, contrary to the usual view, historical narratives are causal (in a specific way), and microhistory can be seen as a response to a very specific causal problem of Braudelian macrohistory.     

Microstoria,Pacific History,and the Question of Scale: Two or Three Things That We Should Know About Them

This article is prompted by the recent debate on the so-called crisis in the humanities, and the related call for historians to change direction by returning to history of the longue durée. While pointing out that the ‘crisis’ is more influenced by the changing political economy of the tertiary education sector than by specific historiographical practices, I suggest that small-scale analysis remains compatible with global history approaches. Articulating a parallel examination of Pacific historiography and the Italian variant of microhistory, the article argues that the latter provides fertile stimuli for Pacific history. In particular, I maintain that integrating social analysis can serve to counterbalance the over-emphasis on cultural aspects found in much Pacific historiography.     

The history and philosophy of social science

Carlo Ginzburg is best known as the author of a popular and widely commented work of microstoria Il formaggio e i vermi, published in 1976. Rather than focusing on Ginzburg's contributions to the genre of microstoria, or on the development of his long and very productive scholarly career, my aim in this article is to reflect on a set of themes that recur, with impressive persistence, in his work, from his earliest publications in the mid-1960s, to his most recent works. Above all, I suggest that two elements recur in his work, and that these, jointly, impart upon it its defining character. They are the concern with epistemological issues of knowing, and the ethical conception of the historian's work, which Ginzburg expressess and defends with urelenting rigour.     

A neo-rationalist tendency in the field of the literary intellectual in 1970s Italy: Vittorini,Sciascia, Ginzburg

The article examines a constellation of intellectuals working in 1960s and 1970s Italy who are neither aligned with the extreme political projects of those years nor symptomatic of the perceived collapse in relations between high culture and politics in this period. Instead, Vittorini, Sciascia and Carlo Ginzburg are taken as illustrations of a fertile 'neo-rationalist' tendency in culture-politics relations, at once a reprise of strands from the Enlightenment, an attempt to move beyond Marxist cultural politics and a response to the spread of new intellectual disciplines. Vittorini is shown as laying the groundwork for this tendency, and Sciascia and Ginzburg as putting it into practice through hybrid discourses between narrative, politics, law and history. Finally connections are suggested between this tendency and a longer line of liberal intellectual practice, going at least as far back as the Partito d'azione group of the 1930s and 1940s. L'articolo prende in considerazione un gruppo di intellettuali italiani tra gli anni sessanta e settanta i quali non sono nè allineati con i progetti politici più estremisti di quegli anni, nè sintomatici di una sensazione di collasso imminente nei rapporti tra la cultura di alto profilo ed il mondo della politica, in questo periodo. Al contrario, Vittorini, Sciascia e Carlo Ginzburg sono qui considerati come promotori di una fertile tendenza 'neo razionalista' nei rapporti tra cultura e politica, caratterizzata da un unico tentativo di riappropriarsi di alcuni aspetti dell'illuminismo, di proiettarsi al di lÀ di una cultura politica marxista e di rispondere alla diffusione di nuove discipline intellettuali. Vittorini viene qui considerato come il fondatore di questa tendenza, mentre Sciascia e Ginzburg sono indicati come i prosecutori di questo modello culturale ibrido, prodotto dal convergere di varie discipline: narrative letterarie, politiche, legali e storiche. Infine, vengono indicate connessioni tra questa tendenza 'neo razionalista' ed una più ampia e tradizionale cultura intellettuale e liberale, che ha le sue origini nel gruppo del Partito d'azione negli anni trenta e quaranta.     

Jeux D’échelles. Une Histoire Internationale

The book Jeux d’échelles. La microanalyse à l’expérience, which appeard in 1996 under the direction of Jacques Revel, was translated in Italy in 2006 by the Viella editions under the title Giochi di scala. La microstoria alla prova dell’esperienza. This occasion seemed propicious for a historiographic and epistemological return to the microhistorical experience between France and Italy. It had to do with cross reperencing the reflections of a french historian and those of an italian philosopher to seek to place in evidence, from a distance, the theoretical presuppositions of microhistory, and to measure the displacements undergone.     

Views into the Fragments: An Approach from a Microhistorical Perspective

The approach I call the “singularization of history,” which I have been developing in recent years within the methodological structure of microhistory, is the main subject of this article. It has the precise aim of defining the ways in which scholars can use sources to enter into the past in as detailed and varied a way as possible without becoming trapped within the received channels of the grand narratives. I will make an attempt to demonstrate what the Icelandic School of Microhistory (ISM) is all about and its connection to the scribal culture in the country, as well as the importance of ego-documents for microhistorical analysis. The central element in the analysis of this paper will be the sources themselves—their creation, their context within the events they describe, the opportunities they present for analysis, and in what kind of academic context they have become a subject for enquiry.