期刊文献+

重构、建构与解构之间--从文学形式论史学类型与史学性质 被引量:2

Among Reconstruction,Construction and Deconstruction:On History Genres and Historical Natures from the Angle of Literary Forms
原文传递
导出
摘要 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。 Postmodern historical theorists,Keith Jenkins and Alun Munslow argued about the history genres from literary forms,and further classified the understandings of the nature of history into three categories:reconstructionism,constructionism and deconstructionism. Generally speaking,reconstructionists stress on the objectivity and truth of the accordance of historical knowledge and reality. They also believe that true stories can be rediscovered and narrated accurately by historians. As for constructionists,they assert that history,in essence,is still the counter draw of the past. However,the construction of general history can only be realized by applying theories and methods of other disciplines beside the experienced reality. In addition,deconstructionism points out the fragility of the links between past and history,reality and narration,as well as objectivity and language. It also comprehensively questions the possibility of transforming the past into real history in reconstructive or constructive ways. Therefore,it suggests a way of history destruction to study how the past is compiled into all kinds of historical stories. The attribution of the three history genres reveals the postmodern theoretical positions and consequently bores its own value and function.
作者 邓京力
出处 《史学理论研究》 CSSCI 北大核心 2012年第1期41-50,158,共10页 Historiography Bimonthly
基金 教育部人文社会科学研究基金资助项目“历史学对后现代主义挑战的回应与分析”(项目批准号09YJA770044)的阶段性成果之一
  • 相关文献

二级参考文献76

  • 1Keith Jenkins, Re-thinking History, pp.47-51.
  • 2L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, Oxford : Blaekwell, 1983.
  • 3O. R. Jones, The Private Language Argument, London : Macmillan, 1971.
  • 4Keith Jenkins, Re-thinking History, pp. 51 - 55.
  • 5Keith Jenkins, Re-thinking History, pp. 56 - 57.
  • 6Keith Jenkins, Re-thinking History, pp. 67 - 69.
  • 7Keith Jenkins, Re-thinking History, p. 78.
  • 8Keith Jenkins, Re-thinking History, pp. 80 - 81.
  • 9Keith Jenkins, Re-thinking History, pp. 82- 83.
  • 10Keith Jenkins, Re-thinking History, pp. 84.

共引文献8

同被引文献38

  • 1C.G.亨普尔,黄爱华.普遍规律在历史中的作用[J].世界哲学,1987(4):48-53. 被引量:15
  • 2陈新,蒋重跃,潘国琪.实验史学:后现代主义在史学领域的诉求[J].北京师范大学学报(社会科学版),2004(5):77-84. 被引量:11
  • 3周兵.“自下而上”:当代西方新文化史与思想史研究[J].史学月刊,2006(4):12-17. 被引量:14
  • 4德勒兹,加塔利.资本主义与精神分裂(卷2):千高原[M].姜字辉,译.上海.上海书店出版社,2010:101-102.
  • 5丹尼尔·坦纳,劳雷尔·坦纳著.学校课程史[M].崔允漷等译.北京:教育科学出版社,2006.238.318.239.354.
  • 6杨智颖.课程史研究观点与分析取径探析:以Ktiebard和Goodson为例[M].台湾高雄:复文图书出版社,2008:18-34.
  • 7Kridel, C. Newman, V. A random harvest= A multi- plicity of studies in American curriculum history re- search[M]. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2003= 637-650.
  • 8Franklin, B.M. Curriculum History= Its Nature and Boundaries[J]. Curriculum Inquiry, 1977,7(1) : 67-79.
  • 9Tanner, D. Tanner, L. N. Curriculum development= Theory into practice[M]. New York= Macmillan, 1975.
  • 10Tanner, L. N. Curriculum History as Usable Knowl- edge[J]. Curriculum Inquiry, 1982, 12(4) : 405-411.

引证文献2

二级引证文献1

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部