“异同之间:中国近代教会大学个案研究”学术论坛综述

正近代中国的教会大学作为中西文化交流的重要平台,有效地参与、推进了中国现代国家的建构与社会文化转型。研究各教会大学的同质与差别,既可深化以内部视角研究中国教会大学的多元面向,更能推动以在地性的视角考察教会大学与中国近代社会变迁的能动关系。有鉴于此,哈佛燕京学社(Harvard-Yenching Institute)与浙江大学蒋介石与近代中国研究中心,于2017年9月27、28日在杭州联     

社会转型与文化变迁国际学术研讨会综述

社会转型与文化变迁国际学术研讨会综述马敏１９９５年１０月２８至３０日,在武汉华中师范大学召开了“社会转型与文化变迁”国际学术研讨会。会议由华中师范大学历史研究所和中国教会大学史研究中心联合发起,中国大陆和台湾、香港地区及美国、日本等国家的１２０余位学...     

全球地域化:中国教会大学史研究的新视角

以往海内外学者均曾将中国教会大学史视为西方传教士在华宣教活动予以研究。在1989年华中师范大学举办的研讨会上,章开沅教授直陈:“无庸讳言,一些教会与教会大学曾与西方殖民主义及所谓‘为基督教征服中国’的宗教狂热有过不同程度的联系,也正因为如此,教会大学曾经引起众多中国人士的反感……但是,以现在的眼光来看,这种尖锐的批判虽然不无事实依据,但却失之笼统与有所偏颇,因为它没有将教会大学作为主体的教育功能与日益疏离的宗教功能乃至政治功能区别出来,也没有将学校正常的教育工作与西方殖民主义的侵华政策区别     

美国铝业大王查尔斯·马丁·霍尔与哈佛—燕京学社的缘起

哈佛—燕京学社是美国建立较早的正规的汉学研究机构之一。从１９２８年注册成立至今,学社已走过整整７０年的历程。在这跌宕起伏极不平凡的７０年岁月里,它顺应时势,通过开展各种项目,对亚洲大陆,尤其是对民国时期中国教会大学的发展作出了巨大贡献,在人文科学领域...     

20世纪20年代金陵大学的立案与改组

金陵大学是1910年由南京三所基督教书院合并创办的教会大学。20世纪20年代中国民族主义和革命运动对金陵大学造成巨大挑战。该校的美国当局、南京校方和中国籍教师群体被动或主动做出各种回应,直至学校的治理结构完成根本性转变。20年代初,金陵大学在北京政府教育部完成"部分立案"。1926年,在五卅运动以及北京政府教育部颁布强硬的立案政策的冲击下,金陵大学校内行政层开始改组。至1928年实现校董会设立、中国人出任校长和完成立案的全方位转变,金陵大学由此进入新时代。金陵大学回应立案以及内部改组是一个环环相扣的渐变过程,既体现了中国教会大学在此历史关头处理与中国政府之间关系的共性,又有其特殊的一面。     

近代科技传播与中西文化交流国际学术研讨会综述

1999年8月15日至20日,华中师范大学历史文化学院和中国教会大学史研究中心主办的“近代科技传播与中西文化交流”国际学术研讨会在武汉举行,来自中国内地和台湾以及美国、意大利、瑞典等国家的代表40余人参加了会议。会议主要围绕近代科技传播的方式与特点、科技传播对近代中国社会及思想文化的影响、近代教会大学与科技传播和传教士与近代科技传播等问题展开了讨论。一、近代中国科技传播的方式与特点对于近代西方科学技术在中国的传播,一般认为主要是通过翻译介绍和派遣留学生等方式进行的。这次学术研讨会,一方面从实证的角度进一步深化…     

从"内外"到"中西":金陵大学顶层治理结构的转变

在创校初期,金陵大学校内的教学与行政采西化模式,与中国本土的教育体制几乎没有关系。在当时,这是所有的中国教会大学的共性。在1927年以前,金陵大学的顶层治理由托事部和理事会构成"内外"结构。托事部由各合作差会合作设于美国,对金陵大学的经济与人事负全责,是校产的所有者。在南京的理事会也是金陵大学的决策机构,更是托事部的代表与执行机构。1927年南京国民政府成立后,金陵大学逐渐完成内部改组与"立案",其顶层治理转变为"创始人委员会—校董会—校方"的"中西"结构。创始人委员会代表"西",校董会同时包含"中""西"因素,代表校方"中"。与托事部相比较,创始人委员会对金陵大学的直接管控减弱,校董会并非只是创始人的执行机构。校董会中本地教会和校友力量上升,代表了金陵大学的本土化方向。"校方"是校长及校内由中国籍教师组成的行政层,代表着中国籍教职员在校内的话语权,这是一股新的力量,加强了金陵大学的自主性和本土化。     

基督宗教来华与中西文化交流学术研讨会述评

20 0 0年 8月 1 2日至 1 5日 ,“基督宗教来华与中西文化交流”学术研讨会在武汉东湖召开 ,1 0多个省市区的近 4 0名专家学者参加了会议。此次会议由华中师范大学中国近代史研究所暨中国教会大学史研究中心主办、中国社会科学院世界宗教研究所暨基督教研究中心协办。与会代表发表论文 30余篇 ,涉及基督教来华史的诸多方面 ,在新材料的发掘、新方法的运用和新问题的探讨等方面取得了若干突破性的进展。章开沅先生称此次会议为“一次高层次的观点碰撞和学术交流”。一明清之际传教士来华引起的中西文化交流的历史 ,是近百年来中外学者研究的一…     

章开沅先生访谈录

章开沅 ,浙江吴兴人 ,1 92 6年生。自 1 951年起在华中师范大学任教至今 ,1 984年至 1 990年曾任该校校长。 1 983年起 ,任国务院学位委员会历史学科评议组成员、召集人 ,至 1 990年止。 1 990年至 1 993年 ,历任普林斯顿大学历史系与普林斯顿神学院客座研究员、耶鲁大学历史系鲁斯学者、加州大学圣地亚哥分校历史系客座教授。 1 993年 9月至 1 994年 1月 ,任台湾政治大学历史所客座研究教授。 1 995年 1月至 7月 ,任香港中文大学第 1 4届“黄林秀莲访问学人”。现任华中师范大学中国近代史研究所教授 ,兼任中国教会大学史研究中心主任。迄…     

鲜为人知的真相——震惊中外的天津教案

天津教案是中国教会史上震惊中外的一件大事。关于天津教案的起因,众说纷纭,而其真相却鲜为人知。     

民国时期中西交通史课程设置

"中西交通史"列为大学课程之一,在中国为时并不太晚。1920年留美归国的陈衡哲在北大开设"欧亚交通史",盖为中西交通史进入大学课程之始。1930—1940年代,随着相关中外研究著作和译著的日益增多,在大学讲授中西交通史性质课程者明显增加,如张星烺、郑鹤声、郑师许、周传儒、王国秀、陈受颐、向达、孙毓棠、郭廷以、张维华、叶国庆、朱谦之、翁独健、姚从吾、冯承钧、韩儒林、白寿彝、方豪等。作为一种专门化程度较高的课程,中西交通史并非一般教员所能胜任,而且因其在大学史学系课程中的地位并不突出,没有制度化的保证,故该课程的开设常随教员流动而时断时续。     

South African University history: a historiographical overview

University history has traditionally been the domain of the commemorative publication which presented institutions in a very favourable light, full of the boasts of growth and achievement. In considering university histories, it is useful to examine this traditional approach as well as more recent scholarly developments in the study of the history of institutions of higher learning internationally. In South Africa, most universities have some form of published history, although these vary greatly in scope, depth and critical approach. This article briefly considers volumes produced on South African universities and their past in the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. Trends and approaches evident in this wide variety of publications are highlighted. Questions such as the choice of moments of origin and commemoration, the effect of Apartheid on the retelling of the past and the use of either an autobiographical or a collaborative approach are considered. The comparative lack of histories of former ‘non-white’ universities is also explored, while the predominance of interest in matters of institutional identity in the post-Apartheid context is highlighted.     

From the government to the university: Efforts to write national history in the early Republic

ABSTRACT

From the controversies surrounding the National History Bureau in the early Republic to the short-lived National Historiography Office at Peking University, the traditional undertaking of writing dynastic history experienced many crises during the transformative Republican era. The National History Bureau was merged with Peking University as part of Cai Yuanpei’s efforts to separate the field of national historiography from the government and shift it toward universities, as well as his efforts to further reform the university system. In comparing the staff members and aims of the National History Bureau and the National Historiography Office of Peking University, the latter clearly represented an update in terms of concepts and methods. The purpose of the History Bureau’s shift from “dynastic” to “popular” history, which apparently intentionally imitated the German academic system, was to render national historiography and other related research independent of the government, cast off the traditional moral burden of “condemning evildoers and praising the virtuous,” and gradually move forward on the path of specialization for national historiography within the university system. The National Historiography Office’s various editing plans amply demonstrate this tendency. The many winding detours that the “national history” efforts took between dynastic and popular history both expressed the entanglement of new and old ideas within academic circles, and revealed the contemporary struggle between the government and universities.     

Study of the History of Geographical Ideas

Two recent books on the history of geographical ideas, by A. G. Isachenko of Leningrad University, and by Preston James of Syracuse University, are reviewed in the general context of the need for a textbook for courses now being taught at Soviet universities. The Isachenko book is criticized on the ground that it reduces the history of geographical ideas to a history of physical geography, ignoring the impact of human activity. James, who deals with the history of geographical ideas as a whole, is praised for having included a chapter on the new geography in the Soviet Union and on the innovative aspects of theoretical geography, such as systems theory, spatial systems, diffusion on studies, etc. In the reviewer's opinion, the two books need to be examined critically in connection with preparation of a text for a Soviet university course on the history and methodology of geography.     

日本国立大学的法人化改革

日本的国立大学法人化改革是日本行政改革和高等教育改革的重要组成部分,在日本教育史上具有划时代意义。通过大学法人化改革,日本官味十足的国立大学,改制成为大学法人,获得了办学自主权,也承担起了经营大学的重要责任。改革正使日本的国立大学焕发着生命力。虽然在改制中会遇到各种困难,但改革的方向是正确的,必将推动日本高等教育的进一步发展。     

教育部直属师范大学历史教学论类课程建设的几个问题

2007年国务院决定在教育部直属师范大学实行师范生免费教育,学科教学论的地位得到重视,学校对这类课程的要求也进一步提高。以往部属师范大学历史教学论类课程单一,内容庞杂,理论与实践分离,教学效果不理想。《历史教学论》作为一门学科,应该根据授课对象、培养目标、教学内容分解为多门课程,每一门课程集中力量完成师范生培养的某一个方面的任务,以提高教学质量。     

“Gedankenaustausch über Probleme und Methoden der Forschung”. Transatlantische Gastprofessoren aus Emigrantenkreisen in Westdeutschland nach 1945

The history of the sciences and humanities follows cycles in some of which there is greater emphasis on the continuity of developments, in others on the breaks in continuity. In recent years the main focus of research for the 20^th century has been on the continuities extending beyond the boundaries of 1933 and 1945. The main aim of this study, however, is to examine the impulses for the internationalization of German universities provided by a transnational group of academic migrants. These migrants, whose origins were in the German academic community, represented an alternative continuity beyond the boundaries of this period: they were visiting academics who were the conveyors and interpreters of ideas from Germany into the USA and Britain and vice versa. The study of this group therefore combines remigration history and the history of universities as institutions, focussing on actors, networks and innovations in teaching, with the history of individual subjects and disciplines.     

由“分期”史到“断代”史——民国时期大学“中国通史”讲授体系之演变

民国时期大学的中国通史讲授,有一个从模仿西洋史上古、中古、近古、近世的分期体系,向断代体系逐步演变的过程,最通行的断代方法为先秦、秦汉、魏晋南北朝、隋唐五代、宋辽金元、明清六段。在前一种讲授体系下,由于分期标准难以确定,造成时期划分极端混乱,中西历史对照讲授的目的难以达到,而且由于受西方中心史观的影响,还出现了强分时代乃至割裂历史的弊端。因此,这种讲授体系逐渐被各大学所抛弃,而代之以后者。后一种讲授体系的最终确立,是在分段问题上充分考虑中国自身历史发展特点的结果。其问题主要在于各段历史在实际讲授过程当中,常常不能衔接,造成通史事实上不通。与通史讲授体系的演变相呼应,通史教科书的编撰,也大体经历了一个从模仿西洋史分期,到依据本国历史发展特点构建本国通史著作体系的演变。这是中国史研究逐渐深入的一个表现。     

The Canon of the History of Political Thought: Its Critique and a Proposed Alternative

After a brief review of the origins and the nature of the received canon of the history of political thought, this article discusses the critiques that have been leveled at it over the past decades. Two major lines of critique are distinguished: 1. The democratic critique, focusing on the omission of "plebeian," non-Western, and female voices from the traditional canon, as well as the failure of the canon to discuss issues such as popular radicalism, patriarchal rule, and the politics of empire. 2. The methodological critique, in which the canon is deconstructed as an anachronistic, "Whiggish" enterprise, and its validity as history is questioned against the background of "history after the linguistic turn." The article examines the consequences of both lines of criticism for some key concepts in the history of political thought, as well as for the coherence and the structure of the traditional canon. It calls attention to the paradox that, while virtually all elements of the canon have been subjected to incisive critique, the canon itself has so far survived relatively unscathed in the major textbooks and in the way the subject is taught in universities the world over. In the final section the question is raised what a new, reconstructed overall history of political thought might look like, and some preliminary suggestions are offered towards a revision of the canon that would satisfy both the democratic and the methodological critique.     

Hermeneutics without Historicism: Heidegger,MacIntyre, and the Function of the University

Martin Heidegger and Alasdair MacIntyre both claim that universities perform important philosophical functions. This essay reconstructs Heidegger’s and MacIntyre’s views of the university and argues that they have a common source, which I call hermeneutics without historicism. Heidegger and MacIntyre are hermeneutical philosophers: philosophers who are sensitive to the ways in which thought is mediated by interpretation and conditioned by history and culture. But both of them reject the relativistic historicism sometimes associated with a hermeneutical approach to philosophy. This desire to have it both ways leads Heidegger and MacIntyre to attach tremendous importance to activities that take place in universities but nowhere else. The essay also asks whether MacIntyre’s defenders should be troubled by the similarities between his account of the function of the university and Heidegger’s. I argue that they should not, because, while Heidegger’s account of the university has obvious moral and political failings, these failings result not from non-historicist hermeneutics as such, but from specific features of Heidegger’s version of it.