纳粹大屠杀的历史化问题--布罗扎特与弗里德兰德之争

1985-1987年在德国历史学家马丁·布罗扎特与以色列历史学家索尔·弗里德兰德之间展开了关于民族社会主义历史化的争论。争论的焦点是运用历史化概念对纳粹罪行重新解读的合法性及其触发的问题,其根本分歧在于二人对第三帝国进行历史解释时使用的理论框架不同。布罗扎特试图对第三帝国历史进行结构主义解释,并利用历史化将第三帝国放入长时段的社会发展图景中重新解读;而弗里德兰德则坚持意识形态在纳粹罪行认定中的核心作用和道德维度在大屠杀历史书写中的核心地位。"历史化"概念也启示了大屠杀记忆演变中时间维度的复杂性,其中涉及到时间距离、历史性等概念在构成层面、功能发展层面的不同涵义,及其在与道德因素碰撞时会遭遇的问题。争论一方面提醒了大屠杀历史解释在认识论上的相对主义及其带来的道德风险,另一方面也揭示了在方法论层面大屠杀历史研究新视角的可能性。

The Historicization Issue of the Holocaust:The Debate Between Broszat and Friedlander

From 1985 to 1987,there was a debate between German historian Martin Broszat and Israeli historian Saul Friedlnder over the historicization of National Socialism.The debate focused on the legitimacy of reinterpreting Nazi crimes by the use of historicized concepts and the relevant problems engendered by this issue.The fundamental difference lies in the different theoretical frameworks used in their interpretations of the Third Reich history.Broszat tried to make a structuralist interpretation of the Third Reich history and used the concept of historicization to reinterpret the Third Reich in a long-term social development picture.Friedlnder insisted on ideology playing a central role in Nazi crimes and moral dimension playing a central role in the writing of Holocaust history.On the one hand,the debate shows the relativism in epistemology of Holocaust historical interpretation and the moral hazard it brings.On the other hand,it reveals the possibility of a new perspective of Holocaust historical research at the methodological level.