历史分期的概念与历史编纂学的实践

历史编纂学中对历史的分期有自然的或技术性的分期与理论性的分期两种。中国和西方传统时代的历史学家都不注重运用历史的理论分期来编纂历史。对理论化的历史分期的热情是启蒙时代以来社会、自然和历史观念变化所激发起来的,对于中国历史学家说来是外来的。凡理论化的历史分期,其理论的根据都远远超出历史学之外,所以对于历史编纂学来说是无法从理论角度判断的,而只能从其对历史编纂学的实际产生怎样的作用来判断。任何理论模式都具有主观性。所以理论性的历史分期对于历史编纂学说来是假说、工具和方法。     

欧洲一体化的历史与观念

历史与理论的关系,实质上是人类的社会实践与理论的关系,因此可以说它是人类的社会性思考的一个永恒课题。战后以来,西方国际关系研究的“社会科学化”和专业分工所导致的学科“碎化”趋势愈演愈烈,弊端也日益明显。20世纪后期以来,人们逐渐意识到,对于复杂多维的国际政治现象,任何一种研究途径都有其合理性与有效性的限度,只能解决部分问题。国际关系的学科边界极为模糊,这就决定了依托不同的知识谱系,打破相关学科间的藩篱进行跨学科综合研究的重要性。以国际关系的历史研究与理论研究之关联这个基本问题为例,优秀的论著表明,理论思考可以卓越地体现在历史叙事之中,而历史实例的娴熟运用则能有力地支撑理论建构。但多年来国内这两类研究颇有一种相互隔绝甚至厚此薄彼的倾向历史家常常只摆事实不讲“道理”,认为国际关系不过是对外政策及其实践之总和,并无抽象理论可言;理论家则言“义理”而罔顾事实,视历史研究为小道,结果把理论架空。有鉴于此,本刊特约请国内几位国际关系研究者,围绕几个具体研究领域来共同探讨这一主题。讨论的目的当然并非刻意高抬传统人文主义或任何单一研究途径的价值,而只是提醒人们举凡学术研究,无不靠事实与理论相互联系共同推进。历史研究是一切人文社会科学研究的基础,历史     

“理解国际关系：历史与理论”笔谈——战略史考察与大战略理论

历史与理论的关系,实质上是人类的社会实践与理论的关系,因此可以说它是人类的社会性思考的一个永恒课题。战后以来,西方国际关系研究的“社会科学化”和专业分工所导致的学科“碎化”趋势愈演愈烈,弊端也日益明显。20世纪后期以来,人们逐渐意识到,对于复杂多维的国际政治现象,任何一种研究途径都有其合理性与有效性的限度,只能解决部分问题。国际关系的学科边界极为模糊,这就决定了依托不同的知识谱系,打破相关学科间的藩篱进行跨学科综合研究的重要性。以国际关系的历史研究与理论研究之关联这个基本问题为例,优秀的论著表明,理论思考可以卓越地体现在历史叙事之中,而历史实例的娴熟运用则能有力地支撑理论建构。但多年来国内这两类研究颇有一种相互隔绝甚至厚此薄彼的倾向：历史家常常只摆事实不讲“道理”,认为国际关系不过是对外政策及其实践之总和,并无抽象理论可言;理论家则言“义理”而罔顾事实,视历史研究为小道,结果把理论架空。有鉴于此,本刊特约请国内几位国际关系研究者,围绕几个具体研究领域来共同探讨这一主题。讨论的目的当然并非刻意高抬传统一人文主义或任何单一研究途径的价值,而只是提醒人们：举凡学术研究,无不靠事实与理论相互联系共同推进。历史研究是一切人文社会科学研究的基础,历史实践是理论的重要来源和检验途径,而历史实践和历史认识本身也需要理论的指导,国际关系领域自不例外。国际关系研究之传统一人文主义与行为一实证主义两大研究途径完全可以相互借鉴、互为补充。当前国内学界讨论的一个焦点问题,是如何实现国际关系研究、特别是国际理论研究的“中国化”或日“本土化”。或许,将历史学的长处、包括中国源远流长的史学优良传统与现代社会科学的先进思想方法和研究手段结合起来,是值得尝试的途径之一。     

试谈历史认识论的一个问题——兼论所谓舜的“腐败”

本认为,历史认识论的核心内容是,历史研究的主体除了学识水平、分析能力以外,还必须具有对于研究对象的敬意,即尊重历史,对于历史有充分的理解。就中国古史的认识而言,孟子所述舜之两事,表面看来,这是舜的“腐败”行为,而实际上却是舜的合乎情理的举措,不可以“腐败”视之。我们假若尊重历史实际,将这两个事例放在舜所处的时代背景中来认识,则应当完全肯定这是舜的美德而非腐败。     

加快构建新时代历史理论研究“三大体系”

中央在四年前批准成立中国历史研究院,为何专门成立历史理论研究所?作为中国历史研究院唯一新建的研究所,该所名称为何定为“历史理论”而不是“史学理论”?新时代历史理论研究的学科布局有何特点?加快构建新时代历史理论研究“三大体系”,存在哪些短板、须突破哪些瓶颈?作者尝试结合牵头组建历史理论研究所的体会,就上述问题谈点一得之见,希望大家能共同思考、推进研究。     

打造用志新理念

“经世致用”是历代修志秉承的一条基本原则。修志是基础,用志是目的,“修志为用”是新的历史条件下确立的修志主旨。     

评钱穆的中国社会演变论

中国社会演变论是钱穆先生用以中国史研究的史学理论,其内容和形式有一个发展、变化过程。这一理论的基本内涵是：以政治制度的演变为主体、以“士人政治”的变迁为主线用以考察中国历史上的社会演变过程,它反映了钱穆先生关于春秋以前是“封建社会”,战国以下是“四民社会”而非封建社会的中国史观点。这一理论的意图在于：用中国历史上社会演变的有限性来证成中国文化精神传统的不变性,其理论实质是道统文化史观。     

论二程的历史哲学

理学奠基人程颢、程颐从“天理”的角度对历史重新进行了深邃的思考,他们将一种本位价值——道德价值置于一切人类价值之上,把一切历史活动都放到道义的审判台上加以考察,通过对中国历史的再解释以说明伦理价值的普遍性、绝对性和至上性。不论是对历史学基本性质的反思、对历史人物的评价还是对历史规律的探寻和历史动因的认知,其理论基点与归宿都是融摄伦理规范的宇宙本体——“天理”,展现出一种成熟的历史哲学理论所具有的完整性。     

历史学家如何经世致用——郑天挺的经验与意义

发扬中国史学特别是近现代马克思主义历史学经世致用的优良传统,既要重视一般理论的探讨,更要重视史学家个体经验的发掘整理,以资示范与引导。郑天挺的经验就是很好的案例。他的经世致用思想与实践具有体系完整、内容丰富等特点：他“观世”以国计与民生为重,“顺世”以历史大势为依归,“入世”以善作致用之学、善用忠恕之道、善谋民生之需、善于学以致用为特点。郑天挺的经验说明,学术成果需要走出书斋与具体实践相结合,个人学术成就固然重要,经世致用追求下的公共贡献同样不可或缺。     

历史的进步与退步:以"大一统"观念为例

2005年10月15日—16日,南开大学历史学院和《历史研究》编辑部在天津联合举办“中国传统社会基本问题论坛”。“论坛”特别注重中国传统社会演进的重大问题、基本脉络的认识把握与理论提升,以及学界关注的热点问题。由于议题大多是中国古代史教学科研中值得深思的共性疑难,故与会者唇枪舌剑,彼此交锋,讨论非常热烈。还在相互论难中迸发出不少智慧火花,提高和升华了理论认识。争鸣议论的热点主要是:历史观与中国传统社会研究理论范式的清理与建构,包括唯物史观、文化史观、阶级分析方法等;中国传统社会的阶段性发展与变迁,例如唐宋变革、文明冲突与中华多元一体、思想与社会的互动等;中国传统社会的基本构造、集团、分层及利益冲突整合等等。与会者普遍认为,改革开放以来,我国的史学研究突破了“五朵金花”之类的单调理论范式,在具体深入的断代研究和专门研究上取得了前所未有的成绩,应予以充分肯定。但是,倘若仅仅满足于断代或专门的具体研究,局限性较大。只有具体研究与基本问题探讨共同发展,相得益彰,才能积极推动中国古代史研究的繁荣。现将与会专家的代表性论说荟萃如下,以飨同好,以飨读者。     

文化史学是什么?--兼论新旧文化史学的内在一致性

与以兰克为代表的政治史学相比较,文化史学主要围绕四个命题(或假设)而展开。第一,从研究对象看,文化史书写的不是攸关国家命运的重大事件和政治精英的历史,而是人民大众的历史。新文化史研究的课题虽趋于多样化,但对人民大众特别是下层民众和弱势群体的重视有增无减。第二,从历史观念看,文化史书写的不是一治一乱的历史,而是进步的历史。新文化史家并未远离进步,进步主义史观是其反思和批判的主要对象之一。第三,在目标和方法上,文化史学不以确立单个历史事实为至高无上的职责,而是要求揭示历史事实之间的复杂关系,并究明关系得以展开的背后因素。传统文化史重在探求历史背后的理性精神、科学法则、公理公例,新文化史聚焦文化的历史象征、意义和价值。第四,关于文化史学的功能和任务,无论新旧文化史均不满足于追求历史的真相,而是含有比较浓厚的致用色彩,重视在思想启蒙、教化民众以及文化认同等方面发挥作用。     

5. PAST AND “PRESENCE”: REVISITING HISTORICAL ONTOLOGY

The last thirty years have brought about a fundamental revision of historical epistemology. So intense a concentration on the nature of history as a form of inquiry has diminished attention given to the thing that history inquires into: the nature of the past itself. Too readily, that entire domain has turned into a place for dreams, as Hayden White put it: a lost world only available now through the imagination of the author and subject to aesthetic whim. The next thirty years will, I propose, be the period in which ontology returns to the center of historical theory. And nothing short of the reconceptualization of the past—indeed of time itself—must be its objective. It must achieve that objective, moreover, in establishing arguments that are congruent with what revisions of epistemology have taught us about the limits of historical knowledge and the inevitability of textual representation. This paper enters this field by discussing some of the issues involved in rethinking the place of time in historical constructions since Bergson. It demonstrates the confusions inherent in spatial reductions of temporality, which historians have done so much to entrench rather than eradicate, and argues that historians have yet to accommodate the fundamental conceptual shifts inaugurated by heidegger. It then moves to propose a methodological doctrine to which I have given the name “chronism” and seeks to sketch the utility of such a doctrine for bringing one form of presence—that of authenticity—back into the domain of historical study. Doing so invites a number of conceptual and practical difficulties that the paper will address in its conclusions; these may disturb those who have closed their minds to anything beyond the present. Taking ontology seriously interferes both with structuralist assumptions about the nothingness of time and with some of the styles of historical representation that have become fashionable in the postmodern climate. There may be painful lessons to be learned if we are to rescue the past from its current status as a nonentity.     

朱熹史学观三题

朱熹提出了以史证理、以理阐史的史学观。一方面 ,他把史学研究作为穷理的一种途径 ,认为史学的价值在于通过对具体史实的了解来把握天理 ;另一方面 ,他又强调史学要以天理为权衡尺度 ,必须要在熟读经书、把握义理之后 ,才能治史。朱熹把史学纳入了理学的轨道。值得注意的是 ,朱熹非常重视史学的社会价值 ,强调治史为当世之用 ,其史学观表现出明显的经世致用的倾向。     

中国家庭史研究刍议

中国家庭史研究存在误区 ,其一是研究对象与婚姻史、家族史错位 ,其二是忽略历史资料中的家庭与实际家庭的区别 ,其三是把复杂多样的家庭简单化 ,最后是认为家庭史研究只研究历史上的家庭。家庭史研究应通家庭的“古今之变” ,理清家庭历史演变的来龙去脉 ,其历史使命是通过了解中国家庭的过去 ,正确地认识现状 ,科学地预见未来 ,从而推进传统家庭向现代家庭转型。     

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.     

论明焦的史学思想——兼评其《国史经籍志·史类》

焦是晚明著名的思想家 ,也是一位史学家 ,他的史学思想体现在他对史学功用、史学标准、野史的价值、史馆修史的认识等各个方面。焦提倡史书“彰善瘅恶”的借鉴作用 ,认为史著应当经世致用 ,有益教化风气 ;就史书标准而言 ,他表彰直书实录 ,提出了著史当“善恶并列 ,不必以人为断”、“贵贱?列 ,不必以位为断”的进步观点 ;焦肯定了野史的价值 ,主张用野史补苴国史之缺 ,还为改良明代史馆修史 ,提出了自己的见解 ,他的目录学著作《国史经籍志》之“史类”反映了他对史书的理解。     

TEMPORALITIES IN SOUTHEAST ASIAN HISTORIOGRAPHY

The challenge of globalizing historical theory requires that theorization be grounded in material from all parts of the world. Southeast Asia is a world region that is somewhat underrepresented in the theorization of history. The distinctive historical traditions of Southeast Asia present an opportunity to bring new insights to existing theories of history. In this article, I offer a theoretical approach to historical temporality that is grounded in close readings of texts from this region by focusing on how these texts construe temporality through choices of narrative organization. I develop a toolkit for analyzing the temporalities in historical texts from equatorial Southeast Asia (the region covering present-day Indonesia and Malaysia), which includes a precise analytical vocabulary to fully account for their diversity. This approach leads to a theoretical stance that supersedes the conceptual dichotomies of linear/cyclical time and empty/full time, in favor of a more pluralistic understanding of temporalities. The grounded theory presented in this article is not only better suited to working with Southeast Asian materials, but it can also be placed in useful dialogue with existing theories, such as the narrativist approach of Hayden White and recent theorizations of the medieval historiography of Western Europe.     

重构、建构与解构之间——从文学形式论史学类型与史学性质

凯斯·詹金斯和艾伦·穆斯洛将当代西方史学界对于历史学性质问题的立场划分为重构主义、建构主义、解构主义三种分野。重构主义强调历史知识与过去实在相符合的客观性与真理性,相信史家具有以历史叙事的方式重建过去的技能;建构主义主张历史在根本层面上依旧是对过去的摹写,但在经验事实之外需要借助其他学科的理论和方法,以期实现对总体历史的建构;解构主义则指出了过去与历史之间、真实与叙述之间、实在与语言之间联结的脆弱性,主张以解构历史编纂学的方式透析过去如何被编制为各种历史。这种史学类型的划分本身即蕴涵了后现代主义的基本理论立场与实际指涉,从中可以更加清晰地辨识其对历史学性质问题挑战的核心范围与思想取向。     

Identity formation through national calendar: holidays and commemorations in Pakistan

This article contributes to academic literature on the project of identity formation in a postcolonial nation‐state. The article argues that a nation‐state emphasising certain aspects of the past for commemorative or celebratory purposes, while suppressing or ignoring the memories of some other event or historical figure, are both parts of the same process. Both these processes, in different ways, seek to give a certain direction to the narrative about the history of the nation and the nation‐state. These aspects of national memory and amnesia have been explained through the prism of national/public holidays while foregrounding the case study of Pakistan. The article argues that although this process of shaping a specific narrative (referred to as commemorative narrative in this article by using Yael Zerubavel's work) is common to every project of identity formation, its peculiarity is more pronounced in a postcolonial state like Pakistan, which has certain cut‐off dates and ruptures but is, simultaneously, eager to emphasise continuities in its trajectory and antiquity in historical tradition. The study of the process of developing a national calendar in case of Pakistan will show that identity formation is a transient process in which various identarian values, political considerations and social processes play an important part. In particular, it requires an attempt on the part of the state to try impose a homogenising historical narrative by envisaging a national calendar, i.e. by announcing a national or public holiday. This helps accord prestige to persons credited as founding fathers or ideologues, ascribe solemnity to days remembering wars and festivity to mark independence or religious occasions. By discussing these themes in detail, this exploratory study of the history of national calendar will lend an alternative lens through which to look into the processes of identity formation in postcolonial nation‐states in general.     

1. THE DEFINING CHARACTER OF CHINESE HISTORICAL THINKING1

Imbued with profound historical consciousness, the Chinese people are Homo historiens in every sense of the term. To be human in China, to a very large extent, is to be historical, which means to live up to the paradigmatic past. Therefore, historical thinking in traditional China is moral thinking. The Chinese historico‐moral thinking centers around the notion of Dao, a notion that connotes both Heavenly principle and human norm. In view of its practical orientation, Chinese historical thinking is, on the one hand, concrete thinking and, on the other, analogical thinking. Thinking concretely and analogically, the Chinese people are able to communicate with the past and to extrapolate meanings from history. In this way, historical experience in China becomes a library in which modern readers may engage in creative dialogues with the past.