口述证言能否成为历史证据?——情感史研究对近现代史学的三大挑战

Can Oral Testimonies Be Historical Evidence? Three Challenges of Emotions History to Modern Historiography

自20世纪90年代以来,对"慰安妇"制度的研究在日本学界引起了广泛的争论,其中出现了三派观点:左翼史家认为"慰安妇"为日军所迫,右翼人士对之反驳,而以上野千鹤子为首的女性主义者则指出,左、右翼学者纠缠于官方文件的有无来考察、检证"慰安妇"制度,却对"慰安妇"所做的口述证言不加重视,因其带有情绪化或不一致的内容而视之为次要,贬低其史料价值。从近代史学的发展来看,史家重视文献史料而忽视口述证言,表现了兰克史学的影响,在日本史学界尤其明显。但新兴的历史学诸流派——以情感史、女性史和记忆研究等为代表——已经对这一传统从史学观念、史学方法和历史书写这三方面提出了有力的挑战,有助我们认识当代史学的变化趋势和未来走向。

Since the 1990 s,the study of the "comfort women"system has caused an intense debate in Japanese academic circles,in which there have appeared three sides: the left-wing historians believe that the "comfort women"were recruited forcibly by the Japanese army whereas the rightwingers refute them. Then Ueno Chizuko,a well-known feminist sociologist,points out that both the left and right-wing scholars are obsessed with the availability of official documents to examine and ascertain the "comfort women"system while paying little or no attention to the oral testimonies by the former "comfort women". Because of their emotional and/or inconsistent content,these testimonies are regarded as secondary and without much historical value. Indeed,due to the influence of the Rankean School,the development of modern historiography shows that professional historians tend to prioritize written documents over oral sources. The professionalization of modern Japanese historiography has been a salient example. Yet the emerging new schools of historiography-represented by emotions history,feminist history,and memory studies-have presented a powerful challenge to this tradition,urging historians today to reexamine it in three aspects: the ideas of history,methods of history and styles of history. This challenge has not only attested to the changing trend but also pointed to the future direction of contemporary historiography.