世界历史教学的挑战

当今,无论在研究领域还是教学领域,世界历史都成为最重要的议题之一。人们可以真切地感受到有关世界体系的历史研究取得了长足发展。这一新趋势削弱了传统的中、小学历史教学,传统历史教学建立在种族中心主义方法基础之上,被民族国家用于加强民族集体认同（通常与其他国家相对立）。与此相反,新的世界历史教学可以被视为一种开展不同文化间教育和加强世界主义的手段。这里建议世界历史课程计划以概念、空间和时间这三重框架为基础。概念框架集中于两个主题：人类社会的演进及其相互交往;空间框架可以持续利用与主题有关的球体投影图来展示;时间框架由基于9个时代的历史分期连接起来,另附一个时期论述未来前景。     

世界历史、英国学派与国际关系理论

针对当前西方国际关系理论在解释现实和预测未来上的混乱和无力,作者提出理解过去成为重构国际关系研究的前提;并且在介绍和评论沃尔兹、吉尔平等为代表的现实主义世界史观和沃勒斯坦世界史观的联系与区别之后,对世界历史中国际力量的结构提出了新的证据,尤其着重介绍了英国学派国际体系和国际社会概念的缘起、演化及理论家们的批判。虽然本文作者即是当前英国学派的代表人物之一,但他并不避讳英国学派在理论上的缺憾,指出巴里·布赞构建在没有共同文化的条件下国际体系也可以转化为国际社会理论框架同时,关闭了一个布尔曾经试图打开的空间。作者认为在解读国际社会的世界历史方面还有很多课题需要深入探讨。     

历史思维的中国模式存在吗？--一种跨文化的分析北大核心CSSCI

本文以黄俊杰教授对界定中国历史思维特征的反思为起点,讨论了历史文化与传统进行比较与对照的方式,并探讨一些新的思考方式。文章认为,文化比较通常引起两方面的情况(一种文化遭遇另一种文化后开始自我反思),并试图界定一种历史文化,如中国的历史文化,当中国史学传统在西方被提出和感知时,它或多或少是被视作西方历史思维独特性的反例。鉴于西方学术在现代具有的霸权性影响,当今的中国历史学家也在抵制东西方的两分法。对这种两分法或两种文化的特征更进一步的研究表明,其不仅相互有关,而且是暂时的。例如,当现代中国人显露出受到兰克史学的巨大影响时,他们基本上尝试去重新发现自己的文化过去,如18世纪的考据学传统,以适应变化的世界。本文主张,现在我们的任务是赋予文化比较得以在其中进行的特殊情境以历史意义,超越那些为重新评价某种文化中的确定要素而易被接受的特征,运用历史智慧,应对我们现在面临的挑战。     

从博物馆形态重构看历史建筑改造的中西差异北大核心CSSCI

随着社会的发展,历史建筑的保护与利用考验着世界各国对自身文明与当代文化导向的思考,这其中将历史建筑改造为博物馆则是这种思考的重要体现。中西方在此类博物馆改造中,所呈现出不同的重构形态,不但有技术与制度上的原因,背后实则折射出不同的文化视角,本文试从以上几个方面,通过典型案例解析博物馆建筑重构形态的差异,并以此阐发博物馆形态在重构中的重要意义,同时希望能给如何评价历史建筑改造博物馆带来一种新的解读。     

20世纪的世界史学史

本文对 2 0世纪出现的具有全球视野的各种世界史研究范式进行了综合评述。真正的具有全球意义的世界史研究在 2 0世纪出现 ,它们可以分为历史哲学、社会科学和专业历史研究三种。 2 0世纪早期的历史哲学超越了民族国家的分析框架 ,提出了不同文化传统之间交流的有意义的问题。五六十年代流行于美国学术界的现代化分析理论关注于经济发展、城市化、工业化等理解现代社会的重要问题。坚持依附论和世界体系分析的学者认为 ,帝国主义和殖民主义的世界体系是理解现代世界的关键。工业历史学者注重具体历史过程的分析。 80年代后 ,全球史观的世界历史研究根据不同的生态史。这些研究各有突破和不足 ,但都对全球视野的世界历史研究做出贡献。     

文化、权力与世界历史—兼评埃里克·沃尔夫《欧洲与没有历史的人民》

本文以埃里克·沃尔夫的《欧洲与没有历史的人民》为切入点,探讨了世界历史研究中的文化、权力等问题。文章以唯物史观为理论指导,首先批评了将文化理解为固定的、单一的和以自我为中心的错误观念,指出只有将文化视为开放和互动的系统,才能真正认识世界历史中复杂的联系。同时,文章也分析了世界历史编纂中"欧洲中心主义"背后所体现的知识与权力的纠结,以及欧洲是怎样运用它在知识上的这一权力去书写以自我为中心的世界历史的。在此基础上,文章提出世界历史研究应注意地区性历史与全球性历史的结合,既要看到全球性力量所带来的巨变,也要关注各种地区性力量在这一过程中起到的作用。唯如此,才能理解世界历史中统一性与多样性的联系,而不会将之看成是"欧洲中心"的力量在其中起主导作用的过程。     

世界历史的分期与国际体系的演变

本在介绍、分析和批判西方学术界世界历史权威分期法的同时,从国际体系演变的角度,提出了人类从60,000年前分散的采猎群到今天全球经济政治高度一体化的新的历史分期法。作以一种全新博大的历史观对西方历史学和国际关系学两大领域的主流理论提出了挑战。本译自作《世界史中的国际体系：国际关系研究的再构建》一书。作认为正是由于历史研究的匮乏,致使西方主流国际关系理论陷于只能孤芳自赏的境地。而只有融理论研究于历史探讨,建立一个超越现有诸种框架之上的新时空观,国际关系研究才能走出误区,真正对社会现实和其他学科产生影响。     

西方历史哲学的进程——论世界历史的历史认识与新的世界史观

“历史”是时间中发生的一切事件的全体。“历史叙述”不是学问叙述,而是文学叙述。“历史学”是历史的学问,历史学系统地考察内在于历史的诸事件;在全体历史中,历史学寻求某种历史规律或普遍性。“历史哲学”是历史研究和历史叙述结果的价值评价,历史哲学探求历史的统一性、历史的意义、结构、目标、历史的理念乃至形而上学问题。人类已跨入新世纪,所谓单一文化圈的“欧洲中心论”时代早已终结,一个多元文化圈的跨文化时代已经到来。与这种新的时代相适应,人类必须构筑一种新的世界史观：一方面,这种新的世界史观应当在人类存在本身中哲学地展现人的本来的“人性”;另一方面,这种新的世界史观应当在被升华的神性信仰中活生生地显现人的本来的“心性”。     

基于历史发生学解读下的陕西历史文化资源创新开发研究

陕西历史文化分为周亲汉唐四大体系,这四大文化资源包括丰厚的陵墓遗存和独特的民间艺术;文化底蕴深厚的民俗民情和丰富的文物遗存。目前人们对这些资源的单个旅游价值研究较多,但对其文化价值关注较少。基于历史发生学解读下的陕西历史文化资源创新开发研究,旨在将陕西文化历史资源放在文化学研究领域,这将丰富对历史资源的文化价值重要性的理解。本文从历史发生学的角度,分析陕西历史文化丰富的资源遗存和风俗习惯特色。并对陕西历史文化资源的创新开发进行了分析。     

略论“全球历史观”

20世纪下半期,伴随着对“西欧中心论”或“欧洲中心论”的批判,学术界出现了一种强调以“全球眼光”审视人类历史的“全球历史观”。这一现象是史学家们对20世纪世界历史变化和史学研究方法进行全面而系统的反思的结果。“全球历史观”的出现反映了学们在新的时代背景下认识历史及其变化的一种新的思维活动,     

CULTURAL HISTORY,THE POSSIBLE,AND THE PRINCIPLE OF PLENITUDE1

Cultural historical research has deliberately challenged “historical realism,” the view that history is comprised entirely of observable actions that actually occurred, and instead has emphasized the historical significance of thoughts, emotions, and representations; it has also focused on the invisible, the momentary, and the perishable. These latter elements introduce the notion of the possible in history. This article examines the ways in which cultural history has approached the notion of the possible, as well as the methodological and theoretical implications of this approach. Its chief claim is that the idea of possibility is fundamental for the concept of culture and ineliminable from its historical study. The question of possibility is present in multiple ways in the study of history; it is important to distinguish among different levels of possibility. The possible may mean, for instance, what it is possible for historians to know about the past, or the possibilities open to historical agents themselves, or, indeed, the possibilities they perceived themselves as having even if these seem impossible from the point of view of the historian. The article starts with the first aspect and moves on toward the possibilities that existed in the past world either in fact or in the minds of those in the past. The article argues that the study of past cultures always entails the mapping of past possibilities. The first strand of the essay builds on the metaphor of the black hole and intends to solve one of the central problems faced by cultural historians, namely, how to access the horizon of the people of the past, their experience of their own time, especially when the sources remain silent. The second, more speculative strand builds on the notion of plenitude and is designed to open up avenues for further discussion about the concept of culture in particular.     

The New Annalistic: A Sketch of a Theory of History

This article argues for the establishment of a new, "annalistic" model of history and historical investigation. This implies a new concept of historical event: instead of being seen as an element within a historical narrative, the historical event is defined as the common reference point of many narratives that can be told about it. The annalistic model also implies a new concept of historical change: instead of being defined as the change of an "object" within a set of given historical parameters, historical change has to be perceived as the change of parameters related to a given historical object. A new concept of history follows from the annalistic model: instead of history being a metaphysical unity of space and time (the destiny of mankind, the positivist's world of facts), in which everything is linked to everything, it is instead the product of historical judgment carried out by those who design stories about their own past, present, and future. To the "annalist" a world is imaginable in which no history has existed, exists, or will exist.
The article analyzes three aspects of the concept of historical time: it demonstrates the huge variety of temporal structures in history; it argues for the foundation of the representation of historical time in linguistic concepts; and it discusses the relationship of fictionality and reality in historical discourse. Finally, the annalistic model is compared to the traditional concept of history established by historicism in the nineteenth century.     

A WORLD CONNECTING? FROM THE UNITY OF HISTORY TO GLOBAL HISTORY

Global history looms large in current historiography, yet its heuristic design and political functions remain ill‐reflected. My article seeks to uncover the historical origins of the assumption that the “world” has one common history and that it is feasible and desirable to write it. I analyze the epistemic infrastructure underlying this assumption and argue that global history as practiced today is predicated on a specific mode of world‐making that provides its basic template: Global history both grew out of and intellectually sustains the conception of an increasingly connected world. The type of connectedness thereby implied and reinscribed was established by what I call the “world‐historical process,” a cognitive framework that co‐emerged with the early modern and modern European conquest of the world through expansion, discovery, commerce, and culture. The article investigates how this process‐template emerged out of the crisis of universal history that could no longer integrate and reconcile the multiple pasts of the world. The format of the world‐historical process was central to Enlightenment historians' assertion of the secular and scientific prestige of their craft, as much as to its ability to discern global epochs, in particular the modern and the premodern. My article traces the fortunes of this template through historicism up to present‐day global history. Current global history remains structured around the growing connectedness of previously distinct parts of the planet whose pasts are transformed into relevant world history by the very process that makes them increasingly interrelated. Global history may be too much a product of the process of globalization it studies to develop epistemologically and politically tenable alternatives to “connectivity.”     

论新时代中国世界历史学话语体系的构建

世界历史学的话语体系蕴含在世界史的研究、编撰和教学之中,其实质是中国学者如何认识中国与世界的关系,如何界定人类历史的性质,如何阐明对人类社会发展演变的基本观点和判断,体现的是中国学者将世界历史理论化的途径,目的则在于实现自身的学术话语权。新的时代必然要求不断发展的话语体系,这就需要在唯物史观基本原理和新时代中国特色社会主义思想的指导下,梳理世界史话语体系建设的发展历程,进一步提炼世界史研究的核心概念、表述框架和阐述方式,彰显中国世界史研究和编撰的当代理论视角。从生产和交往两个基本概念进一步分析世界历史演化的内在动力,显然是其中一种可行的研究思路。通过生产和交往两种基本动力构建的分析框架,可以清楚地看到,中国特色社会主义建设事业不仅是中国历史连续性的自然体现,而且也是人类社会发展规律的具体表现。     

Exploring Regional Domains: A Comparative History of Regionalism

This article offers an overview of the history and development of regionalism with a view to providing a framework for thinking about its progress and prospects in different parts of the world. After a preliminary discussion of the problems encountered in defining regions and regionalism, the article moves to a historical and comparative analysis, ranging widely to include examples from many different regions. It argues that regionalism should be understood as an evolutionary and cumulative process, which has grown and expanded to take in new tasks and new domains. It has become an increasingly important component of the different structures of global governance, and one whose potential neither states, multilateral institutions, nor non-state actors can afford to ignore.     

Graffiti, Calliglyphs and Markers in the UK

Graffiti is a commonplace in the modern world but it is easy to project the concept of illegal graffiti into the past. Writing on walls in previous historical periods is discussed and as most was not illegal the concept of ‘calliglyphs’ is introduced to allow historic writing or drawings on walls or objects to be studied in context. The article then proposes the word ‘marker’ as a concept to define wider forms of personal expression and the human imprint in the late twentieth/early twenty-first century landscapes. A framework for markers is outlined based upon the concepts of permission and tolerance.     

"This war for men's minds": the birth of a human science in Cold War America

The past decade has seen an explosion of work on the history of the human sciences during the Cold War. This work, however, does not engage with one of the leading human sciences of the period: linguistics. This article begins to rectify this knowledge gap by investigating the influence of linguistics and its concept of study, language, on American public, political and intellectual life during the postwar and early Cold War years. I show that language emerged in three frameworks in this period: language as tool, language as weapon, and language as knowledge. As America stepped onto the international stage, language and linguistics were at the forefront: the military poured millions of dollars into machine translation, American diplomats were required to master scores of foreign languages, and schoolchildren were exposed to language-learning on a scale never before seen in the United States. Together, I argue, language and linguistics formed a critical part of the rise of American leadership in the new world order - one that provided communities as dispersed as the military, the diplomatic corps, scientists and language teachers with a powerful way of tackling the problems they faced. To date, linguistics has not been integrated into the broader framework of Cold War human sciences. In this article, I aim to bring both language, as concept, and linguistics, as discipline, into this framework. In doing so, I pave the way for future work on the history of linguistics as a human science.     

POTENTIAL HISTORY: READING ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE FROM INDIGENOUS KNOWLEDGES*

Until the beginning of the twentieth century, history, as a core concept of the political project of modernity, was highly concerned with the future. The many crimes, genocides, and wars perpetuated in the name of historical progress eventually caused unavoidable fractures in the way Western philosophies of history have understood change over time, leading to a depoliticization of the future and a greater emphasis on matters of the present. However, the main claim of the “Historical Futures” project is that the future has not completely disappeared from the focus of historical thinking, and some modalities of the future that have been brought to the attention of historical thought relate to a more-than-human reality. This article aims to confront the prospects of a technological singularity through the eyes of peoples who already live in a world of more-than-human agency. The aim of this confrontation is to create not just an alternative way to think about the future but a stance from which we can explore ways to inhabit and therefore repoliticize historical futures. This article contains a comparative study that has been designed to challenge our technologized imaginations of the future and, at the same time, to infuse the theoretical experiment with contingent historical experiences. Could we consider artificial intelligence as a new historical subject? What about as an agent in a “more-than-human” history? To what extent can we read this new condition through ancient Amerindian notions of time? Traditionally, the relationship between Western anthropocentrism and Amerindian anthropomorphism has been framed in terms of an opposition. We intend to prefigure a less hierarchical and more horizontal relation between systems of thought, one devoid of a fixed center or parameter of reference. Granting the same degree of intellectual dignity to the works of Google engineers and the views of Amazonian shamans, we nevertheless foster an intercultural dialogue (between these two “traditions of reasoning”) about a future in which history can become more-than-human. We introduce potential history as the framework not only to conceptualize Amerindian experiences of time but also to start building an intercultural dialogue that is designed to discuss AI as a historical subject.     

Resonant Materiality and Violent Remembering: Archaeology,Memory and Bombing

In this paper I outline the commemorative potential of a historical archaeology of aerial bombing. As an affective and challenging archaeology‐from‐below it offers glimpses of individuality and everyday life amidst the violence of warfare, inscribing shattered buildings and material culture as sites of memory. Firstly I examine the tropes and themes that link archaeology, memory studies and the history of bombing, both in popular imaginations and cultural representations. These include ruins, fragments, depth, wounding, and the contrast between bottom‐up and top‐down views of the world. I then develop these themes to highlight the tensions between historical and mnemonic narratives of aerial bombardment, the importance of a human centred approach to the commemoration of warfare, and the roles of oral history and archaeology in these processes. Finally I briefly discuss a case study of bombsite archaeology and suggest a valuable application for this technique in the discourses of memory and bombing in contemporary German society.