从《剑桥美国对外关系史》看20世纪90年代美国外交史学流派及方法论特征

Features of the Historiography of American Foreign Relations in 1990s Suggested by The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations

20世纪70年代以来美国外交史学出现了两大方面的变化:后修正学派形成并提出了"共识说";"国际史"取向的方法论为大多数史学家认同。然而,《剑桥美国对外关系史》的出版表明,20世纪90年代的美国外交史学界,现实主义学派、修正学派、自由主义全球化论者以及后修正学派在基本史观和重大问题见解上存在巨大差异甚至决然对立;方法论方面也尚需进一步完善。

Two great changes have taken place in the historiography of American Foreign Relations. Firstly, postrevisionism emerged and asserted that a new Consensus had produced. Secondly, international history orientation has been accepted by most historians as the most popular methodology. But the publication of The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations in 1993 suggested the historical ideology and interpretations were very different, even in opposition among the realists, revisionists, liberal globalists and postrevisionists. Methodologically, international history orientation needed to be further perfected, and disadvantages which had been denounced by scholars in 1980s reminded, with some got even worse.